Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/lutheransinmovemOOneve 


THE  LUTHERANS  IN  THE  MOVEMENTS 
FOR  CHURCH  UNION 

SEP  15i92b 


BY 


y 


J.  L.  NEVE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Symbolics  and  History  of  Doctrines  in  the 

Hamma  Divinity  School  of  Wittenberg  College  in 

Springfield,  Ohio 


The  Lutheran  Publication  House 
Philadelphia. 


Copyright  1921  by 
J.  L.  NEVE 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  ONE.    THE  WITTENBERG  CONCORD  5-18 

CHAPTER  TWO.    LUTHERANISM   IN  ITS   STRUGGLE 

WITH  CALVINISM    19-48 

I.    Calvinism  as  a  New  Type  of  Protestantism  20 

II.    The  First  Conflict  Between  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism  22 

III.  Inroads  of  Calvinism  upon  Lutheran  Territory 25 

IV.  Considerations  for  the  Appreciation  of  the  Conflict 29 

V.    Final  Separation  of  the  Two  Churches   30 

VI.    Further  Loss  of  Lutheran  Territory  36 

VII.    Special  Character  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany..  40 

CHAPTER  THREE.    THE  UNION  MOVEMENTS  OF  THE 

SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY   49-80 

Introductory    Reflections    49 

I.    The  Sendomire  and  the  Montbeliard  Colloquies  52 

II.    The  "Palatinate  Irenicum"   55 

III.  The  Advance  of  Paraeus   56 

IV.  The  Leipzig  Colloquy   57 

V.    The  Convention  at  Thorn  62 

VI.    The  Colloquy  at  Cassel 64 

VII.    The  Colloquy  at  Berlin 70 

VIII.    The  Endeavors  of  John  Dury tj 

CHAPTER  FOUR.    GEORGE  CALIXTUS  AND  HIS  OP- 
PONENTS     81-109 

I.    Preparatory  Influences  upon  Calixtus 82 

II.    Theories  of  Calixtus  and  the  Reply  of  the  Lutherans 86 

Calixtus  on  Fundamentals  and  Nonfundamentals   . .  86 

Appeal  to  Tradition  and  Apostles'  Creed  87 

Religion  as  an  Opposite  to  Theology 89 

The  "Inner  Union"  Claimed 92 

III.  Estimate   of   the   Principles   of   Calixtus   and  of  the 

Lutherans  of  His  Age   96 

Distinction  Between  Church  and  Individual  96 

The  Teaching  of  Calixtus  as  a  Reaction  Against 

the   Orthodoxism  of  His  Age    99 

The  "Internal  Union"   100 

Calixtus  Failed  to  Appreciate  the  Reformation loi 

Humanism    102 

IV.  Polemical  Activity  of  the  Lutherans   105 

Tke  Charge  of  Syncretism  103 

Jena  versus   Wittenberg   105 

The   Severity  of  Polemics    107 


CHAPTER  FIVE.    THE  PRUSSIAN  UNION  1 10-137 

I.    Preparatory  Development 112 

II.    Proclamation  of  the  Union  and  the  First  Stage  of  its 

Development    116 

III.  The    Reaction    120 

IV.  The   Plan  of  an  Absorptive  Union  Changed  into   a 
Confederation    127 

CHAPTER  SIX.    THE  GERMAN  EVANGELICAL  SYNOD 

OF  NORTH  AMERICA   138-197 

I.    Historical   Orientation    140 

II.    Facts  Explanatory  of  the  Growth  of  the  Synod  141 

Support  from  the  Union  Circles  of  the  Fatherland.  .141 
Reaction    Against    Confessional    Lutheransm    in 

America    142 

Liberal  Attitude  in  Matters  of  Dictrine  and  practice  144 

III.    The  Special  Union  Features   148 

Objective  Truth  Opposed  to  its  Subjective  Conception  149 

Scripture  versus  Creed  153 

An    Under-Estimation    of    the    Differences    Between 

Lutherans  and   Reformed   163 

Lord's    Supper 163 

Baptism     169 

Word    171 

Public  Teaching  of  the  Synod   173 

Its   Confessional   Paragraph    190 

CHAPTER  SEVEN.    CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS  WITH 
REFERENCE    TO     PRESENT-DAY     MOVEMENTS 

IN  AMERICA    198-226 

I.    The  Problem  of  Church  Union  in  America  is  Not  the 

Same  as  in  Germany  198 

II.     Some  Motives  for  Church  Union  Examined   205 

III.    The  Persistency  of  the  Difference  214 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 

What  is  offered  in  this  book  is  a  reprint  taken  from 
articles  as  they  appeared  in  the  "Lutheran  Quarterly" 
(Gettysburg,  Pa.,)  during  the  years  from  January  1918 
to  July  1921.  The  suggestion  for  the  preparation  of 
these  detailed  historical  reviews  was  received  when  in 
the  fall  of  1917  we  promised  to  read  a  paper  before  the 
American  Society  of  Church  History  in  New  York  on  the 
"Union  Movements  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Re- 
formed." After  having  given  the  matter  a  little  more 
thought  we  felt  that  it  was  impossible  to  treat  this  sub- 
ject with  any  degree  of  adequacy  in  a  single  paper.  We 
therefore  decided  to  limit  ourselves  in  our  reading  before 
the  Society  to  a  discussion  of  the  union  movements  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  which  culminated  in  the  Witten- 
berg Concord,  and  then  to  continue  our  investigation 
along  the  line  indicated  in  the  table  of  contents  of  this 
book,  thus  covering  all  the  efforts  at  union  with  the  Re- 
formed, in  which  the  Lutheran  Church  has  been  engaged. 
The  contents  of  Chapter  V  was  read  at  another  meeting 
of  the  American  Society  of  Church  History. 

The  author  is  grateful  to  Drs.  William  W.  Rockwell  and 
Henry  Preserved  Smith,  professors  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  for  their  courtesy  in  making  possible  for  him 
the  use  of  a  very  valuable  collection  of  works  on  Polem- 
ics and  Irenics,  which  was  gathered  in  Germany  by  the 
late  Dr.  Briggs  and  which  is  now  a  part  of  the  library  of 
Union  Theological  Seminary.  He  also  acknowledges 
with  much  appreciation  some  valuable  aid  received  from 
the  "Reference  Department"  of  the  Lutheran  Bureau  in 
New  York. 

This  in  an  age  of  union  movements.  The  Episcopa- 
lians, the  Disciples,  the  Presbyterians  have  inaugurated 


special  movements.^  The  Lutheran  Church  is  expected 
to  participate,  and  she  is  misunderstood  when  she  finds 
herself  unable  to  do  so.  It  has  been  our  aim  in  these 
articles  to  call  attention  to  the  lessons  of  history  for  judg- 
ing the  union  problem  as  it  exists  for  the  Lutheran 
Church  today.  The  union  of  American  Protestantism 
with  the  Lutherans  as  participants  is  a  problem  alto- 
gether different  from  the  endeavor  of  bringing  the  sis- 
ters and  the  daughters  of  the  Reformed  Church  family 
into  a  common  understanding.  To  arrive  at  a  basis  for 
judging  this  problem  the  historical  precedents  have  to  be 
investigated.  This  leads  us  to  a  study  of  the  union 
movements  among  the  Germans  in  the  sixteenth,  the  sev- 
enteenth and  the  nineteenth  century.  Here  alone  it  is 
where  the  union  movements  between  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed have  had  a  history.  A  careful  student  will  find 
that  the  union  problem  is  fundamentally  the  same  to-day 
as  it  was  in  the  sixteenth  and  succeeding  centuries.  It 
is  the  question  of  how  to  overcome  the  doctrinal  differ- 
ence between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  types  of 
Protestantism. 

The  tendency  in  the  union  movements  of  to-day  is  to 
ignore  this  difference.  There  is  a  double  reason  for  this 
general  attitude:  (1)  In  the  camp  of  the  Reformed 
churches — and  here  the  movements  usually  started  (cf. 
p.  50  ff.) — ^there  was  always  a  noticeable  readiness 
to  unite  with  the  Lutherans  even  without  doctrinal 
agreement.  It  seems  that  it  was  always  seen  by  the  Re- 
formed churchmen  that  Lutheranism  cannot  continue  to 
exist  in  an  atmosphere  of  unionism  or  doctrinal  indiffer- 
ence; that  it  would  be  bound  to  alter  its  distinguishing 
features  and  eventually  settle  down  upon  a  position  of  an 
absorptive  union  in  which  the  Reformed  type  of  religion 
would  survive.  (2)  Liberalistic  theology  which  has  a 
strong  following  in  the  denominations  has  changed  the 
conception  of  the  Scriptures.  They  are  not  regarded  as 
authoritative,  not  as  the  source  of  truth;  they  are  used 
merely  as  a  kind  of  commentary  on  the  personal  religious 

I     We  refer  to  our  review  on  pages  199-205. 


3 

life  of  the  Christian.  The  formal  principle  of  the  Re- 
formation is  abandoned.  The  objective  faith  is  of  no  in- 
terest anymore.  The  emphasis  is  upon  the  Christian 
experience  and  the  "value  judgments."  This  new  the- 
ology has  made  many  ministers  indifferent  to  the  distinc- 
tion between  Lutherans  and  Reformed.  Ritschl, 
although  he  was  professor  in  the  university  of  a  Lu- 
theran province,  was  an  ardent  advocate  of  the  Union. 

The  Lutheran  Church  insists  upon  the  "formal  prin- 
ciple" of  the  Reformation.  If  she  is  to  be  drawn  into  a 
union  with  other  churches  it  must  be  a  union  in  the  truth 
of  God's  Word.  The  Lutheran  Church  does  not  stand 
alone  on  that.  There  are  many  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  who  take  the  same  position.-  Their  apprehension 
is  chiefly  with  regard  to  the  liberalism  in  so  many  of  the 
churches.  The  Lutheran  Church  is  convinced  that  con- 
fessional indifference  breeds  and  fosters  liberalism.  The 
differences  between  Luther  on  the  one  hand  and  Zwingli 
and  Calvin  on  the  other  were  on  Scripture  truth  and, 
therefore,  they  must  be  overcome  by  a  real  agreement  on 
those  differences.  The  churchmen  of  the  two  camps 
must  come  together  and  discuss  these  differences  with  the 
same  cordiality,  frankness,  thoroughness,  patience  and 
earnestness  that  characterized  the  Leipzig  Colloquy  in 
1632.^  If  it  is  impossible  to  find  a  union  in  that  way 
then  the  Lutheran  Church  will  be  convinced  that  it  can- 
not be  accomplished  by  any  other  procedure. 

Also  this  should  be  said :  Creedal  truth  cannot  come  to 
an  expression  except  through  forms  that  are  more  or  less 
theological  in  nature.  In  the  customary  demand  that 
church  union  must  take  place  on  the  basis  of  "pure  reli- 
gion," on  the  basis  of  the  "fundamentals,"  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  "theology"  and  the  "non-fundamentals"  there  is  a 
fallacy  which  we  have  aimed  to  point  out  in  many  places 
of  the  articles  presented  in  this  book  (pp.  56f.,  70,  75f., 
79,   86-98,   105-107,   117,    129,   150-153,   157f,   211-214). 

2  The  present  agitation  among  the  Presbyterians  over  the  Plan 
for  Organic  Union  (see  pp.  logff.  225)  and  the  negatrve  decision  of 
their  presbyteries  furnishes  an  interesting  confirmation  of  our 
statement. 


The  Lutheran  Church  does  not  insist  on  hair-splitting 
distinctions  on  non-fundamentals  as  such,  but  there  are 
matters  which  some  may  insist  upon  calling  non-funda- 
mentals, that  are  after  all  necessary  for  qualifying  the 
fundamentals,  and  such  cannot  be  treated  with  indiffer- 
ence in  arriving  at  a  basis  for  church  union. 

We  wish  to  say  just  a  word  on  the  somewhat  technical 
form  of  these  investigations.  We  had  to  be  critical,  and 
much  material  was  to  be  crowded  into  brief  paragraphs. 
Such  work  always  demands  its  own  form  of  expression. 
Inasmuch  as  the  historical  material  on  the  problem  of 
union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  has  never  been 
written  up  in  English  we  felt  that  the  foundation  for  a 
more  popular  discussion  of  the  subject  (which  is  de- 
sirable) ought  to  be  in  this  form  of  critical  research. 
For  this  reason  we  have  been  liberal  in  attaching  foot 
notes,  491  in  number,  in  which,  for  the  most  part,  we  have 
aimed  to  indicate  the  literature  for  re-examination  and, 
perhaps,  for  a  further  development  of  the  study. 

In  examining  the  table  of  contents  it  may  seem  that 
the  history  surrounding  the  Schwabach  and  the  Marburg 
Articles  should  have  been  taken  in  with  the  investiga- 
tions of  the  first  chapter.  We  admit  that  this  could  have 
been  done  with  much  profit  for  our  general  purpose.  Yet 
it  may  be  said  that  in  the  Wittenberg  Concord  we  have 
the  first  and  the  only  tangible  result  of  the  union  move- 
ments of  the  sixteenth  century. 

Since  some  needed  corrections  could  not  be  made  in 
the  body  of  articles,  after  the  reprints  had  been  taken, 
we  would,  therefore,  ask  the  reader  not  to  overlook  the 
following. 


CORRIGENDA : 

Page  21,  line  4  from  bottom  read  mediation,  not  meditation. 
Page  22,  line  i  from  top  read  sixth,  not  last. 
Page  48,  line  2  from  bottom  read  nineteenth,  not  eighteenth. 
Page  88,  line  4  from  bottom  read  Sub.  4,  not  Sub.  3. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  WITTENBERG  CONCORD. 

Literature:  The  works  on  Church  History.  We 
mention:  Kurtz,  14th  ed.  (Leipzig,  1906),  revised  by 
Tschackert  (p.  136,  8).  Kawerau  in  vol.  IH  of  Moeller's 
Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte  (Tuebingen,  1907),  pp. 
86ff.,  lOOff.,  124ff.  Koestlin,  Martin  Luther,  5th  ed.,  re- 
vised and  completed  by  Kawerau,  vol.  II,  pp.  326-356; 
576-583  (Berlin,  1903).  The  articles  on  "Wittenberg 
Concord"  in  the  Realencyclopaedie  (quoted  as  R.  E.),  3rd 
ed.,  vol.  XXI,  pp.  383ff.,  by  Kolde  (cf.  Schaff-Herzog)  ; 
in  Meusel,  Kirchl.  Handlexikon,  1st  ed.,  VII,  pp.  285ff. ; 
in  Lutheran  Cyclopedia  p.  545,  by  Jacobs  and  Haas,  (New 
York,  1899).  Planck,  Geschichte  des  protestantischen 
Lehrbegriffs,  vol.  Ill,  pp.  337-408.  Heppe,  Die  konfes- 
sionelle  Entwicklung  der  alt-protestantischen  Kirche 
Deutschlands  (Marburg,  1854),  pp.  72ff.,  76ff.  Schaff, 
Creeds  of  Christendom,  4th  ed.  (New  York,  1899),  pp. 
525ff.  Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines,  (Philadelphia, 
1905),  pp.  390ff.  (cf.  p.  350).  Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte 
4th  ed.  (Halle,  1906),  pp.  878,  (cf.  pp.  862ff.)  Fisher, 
History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  (New  York,  1906),  p.  290. 
See  also  in  R.  E.  the  articles  on  "Bucer"  by  Gruenberg, 
(R.  E.,  Ill,  pp.  603ff.),  on  "Marburg  Colloquy"  by  Kolde 
{R.  E.  XII,  248ff.)  ;  and  on  "Tetrapolitana"  by  Mueller 
(XIX,  pp.  559ff.)  ;  Rudelbach,  Reformation,  Luthertum 
and  Union  (Leipzig,  1839,  pp.  365-397.  As  to  original 
sources,  represented  largely  in  the  form  of  monograph- 
ical  publications,  containing  the  correspondence  of  the 
times,  see  the  enumeration  in  Kolde's  article  in  the  R.  E. 
(vol.  XXI,  p.  383f.) 


The  union  movements  between  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed in  the  sixteenth  century  cannot  be  fully  under- 
stood if  we  do  not  keep  in  mind  that  on  the  part  of  Philip 
of  Hessia  and  of  Bucer  as  the  spokesman  of  the  cities  in 
Southern  Germany  (especially  Strasburg)  the  political 
situation  was  one  of  the  chief  motives  for  all  the  en- 
deavors that  led  to  the  Wittenberg  Concord.  We  may  say 
that  these  negotiations  began  in  the  steps  that  were  taken 
preparatory  to  the  Marburg  Colloquy  (October  2nd  and 
3rd,  1529)  and  that,  therefore,  Philip  was  the  father  of 
the  whole  movement.*  His  aim,  together  with  Zwingli, 
was  to  oppose  a  strong  united  front  to  Charles  V  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  princes  of  Germany.  At  the  time  of 
Marburg  and  up  to  the  Augsburg  Diet  in  1530  Philip  had 
been  looking  to  Zuerich  as  the  centre  of  a  contemplated 
coalition.  It  was  Zwingli's  plan  to  win  Philip  of  Hessia 
and  to  isolate  Wittenberg  (Kawerau,  in  Moeller's  Church 
History,  HI,  p.  104).  This  plan,  Kawerau  points  out, 
had  practically  failed  when  Philip,  at  Augsburg  (1530), 
added  his  signature  to  the  Confession  of  the  Saxons.^ 
The  founding  of  the  Smalcald  Federation  (February 
27th,  1530),  finally,  became  the  decisive  factor  that  ren- 
dered impotent  the  political  plans  of  Zwingli,  which,  if 
they  had  been  successful,  would  have  divided  German 
Protestantism  at  a  very  early  date. 

Political  considerations  were  also  shaping  the  actions 
of  the  Lutherans  at  Augsburg.  Zwingli  and  all  that 
leaned  to  him  were  under  the  ban  during  the  days  of 
Augsburg  (1530)  for  two  reasons:  (1)  because  of 
Zwingli's  political  plans  which  made  him  obnoxious  to 
the  emperor;  (2)  because  of  his  symbolic  interpretation 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  was  especially  abhorred  by 
the  Romanists.  Melanchthon,  in  order  not  to  endanger 
the  cause  of  the  Lutherans,  or,  more  particularly,  the 

4  Cf.  Kolde  in  R.  E.  on  "Marburger  Religionsgespraech,"  XII, 
249,  lofif. 

5  Ibid.  p.  108;  cf.  116,  117. 


cause  of  his  elector^  did  not  risk  to  meet  Bucer  person- 
ally while  at  Augsburg,  because  of  the  latter's  associa- 
tion with  Zwingli  in  the  past.  And  because  of  their 
leaning  to  Zwingli  most  of  the  Cities  of  Upper  Germany 
were  not  permitted  to  subscribe  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion.^ 

.  After  the  adjourning  of  the  Augsburg  Diet  the  cities 
of  Upper  Germany®  found  themselves  in  a  precarious 
situation.  In  case  of  attack  by  the  emperor  they  would 
be  the  first  to  be  overrun.  They  saw  that  their  salvation 
was  in  the  direction  of  a  union  with  Wittenberg.  In 
April  1532  these  cities  joined  the  Smalcald  Federation  by 
subscribing  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  along  with  their 
own  Confessions  which  they  were  not  asked  to  renounce. 
This  joining  of  the  Smalcald  Federation,  however,  did 
not  mean  a  religious  acknowledging  of  these  Upper  Ger- 
mans by  the  Lutherans.  To  bring  about  a  confessional 
union  which  at  the  same  time  would  strengthen  the  po- 
litical ties  was  the  task  to  which  Martin  Bucer  devoted 
himself  with  an  indefatigable  zeal. 

Of  what  kind  was  the  union  that  Bucer  was  aiming  at? 
He  meant  it  as  a  union  that  should  include  the  Zwingli- 
ans,  and  he  meant  it  as  a  union  by  compromise. 

As  was  stated  already,  the  cities  in  the  South,  with  the 
exception  of  Nuremberg  and  Reutlingen,  had  not  been 
permitted  to  sign  the  Augsburg  Confession  so  that  Stras- 
burg,  Constance,  Lindau  and  Memmingen  had  to  hand  in 
a  Confession  of  their  own:  the  Tetrapolitana.^  This 
document  in  the  composition  of  which  Bucer  had  an  im- 
portant part  they  themselves  characterized  as  being 
"neither  Lutheran  nor  Zwinglian."^"  This  was  not  with- 
out a  purpose.  The  way  for  a  future  union  with  the  Wit- 
tenbergers  was  to  be  kept  open.     At  the  same  time  it  was 

6  Cf.  Neve,  "Lutheran  Symbolics  (Columbus,  O.),  P-  85f. 

7  Mueller  in  R.  E.  XIX,  560,  38,  55;  561,  7. 

8  Strasburg,  Constance,  Memmingen,  Lindau,  Ulm,  Biberach, 
and  Augsburg  had  not  been  permitted  to  sign  the  Confession  of 
the  Saxons. 

9  See  article  by  Mueller  in  R.  E.  XIX,  560,  54. 

10  Ibidem,  with  reference  to  Dobel,  Memmingen  im  Reforma- 
tionszeitalter,  part  IV,  p.  42. 


8 

hoped  that  it  would  serve  the  Swiss  as  a  bridge  to  Luth- 
eranism.^^ 

It  was  upon  this  basis  ("neither  Lutheran  nor  Zwingl- 
ian")  that  Bucer  proceeded  with  his  endeavours  at  unit- 
ing the  two  wings  of  Protestantism.  He  persuaded  him- 
self that  Luther  and  Zwingli  had  not  understood  each 
other;  that  the  seemingly  consubstantial  expressions  in 
Luther's  Grosses  Bekenntnis  vom  AhendmahV-  were  not 
intended  to  convey  what  they  seemed  to  teach ;  also  that 
Zwingli  would  be  willing  to  admit  a  positive  gift  in  the 
Supper,  besides  the  mere  symbolical  meaning  of  it.  In 
Strasburg  they  had  always  emphasized  the  presence  of 
Christ's  whole  person  in  the  Supper,  communicating  him- 
self to  the  believers.  The  question  was  now  how  he  could 
induce  Luther  to  abandon  some  of  his  realism,  and  move 
Zwingli  to  add  to  his  signification  theory. 

As  a  key  for  solving  the  difficulty  he  brought  a  phrase 
into  play,  which  he  had  already  employed  in  a  writing  of 
1528  (a  year  and  a  half  before  the  Marburg  Colloquy)  un- 
der the  title  "Vergleichung  Dr.  Luther's  und  seines  Ge- 
genteils  vom  Abendmahl  Christi,"  namely  that  Christ 
was  present  in  a  "sacramental"  way.^^  He  now  spoke  of 
a  "sacramental  presence"  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  in 
the  Eucharist.     This  brought  him  nearer  to  Luther.     He 

11  Cf.  Kawerau  in  Moeller,  III,  p.  113;  Mueller  in  R.  E.  XIX, 
564,  4.  Article  XVIII  of  the'Tetrapolitana"  deals  with  the  Lord's 
Supper.  It  is  there  said  "that  in  this  Sacrament  Christ  gives  to 
his  disciples  and  believers  His  true  Body,  truly  to  eat  and  to  dririk 
as  a  meat  for  the  souls,  and  for  eternal  life."  Quoted  by  Kolde  in 
R.  E.  XXI,  561,  43ff.  This  sentence  reveals  the  median  type  of 
teaching  as  it  prevailed  in  Strasburg.  Heppe,  in  "Konfessionelle 
Entwicklung  der  altprotestantischen  Kirche"  (p.  74)  calls  attention 
to  the  avoidance  of  the  phrase  customary  with  Luther  "in  the 
bread"  (in  pane).  But  note  in  the  above  quoted  sentence  especi- 
ally the  emphasis  upon  the  teaching  which  was  characteristic  of 
the  Strasburgers  in  their  subsequent  dealing  with  Luther  namely 
that  the  true  Body  and  Blood  is  received  only  by  the  believers. 
As  to  the  Zwinglianizing  tendencies  with  regard  to  other  articles 
of  faith,  see  Mueller  in  R.  E.  XIX,  p.  561,  49fiF.  The  fundamental 
diflFerence  from  Rome  was  also  brought  out  a  great  deal  stronger 
than  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  Roman  Mass  is  condemned 
in  most  severe  language :  "ein  grausamer  Krempelmarkt,"  "ein 
unleidlicher  Greuel."     Ibid.  p.  561,  55.     Cf.  Heppe,  pp.  73,  74- 

12  Erl.  Ed.  XXX.  isifif. 

13  Gruenberg,  in  R.  E.  Ill,  608,  34,  article  "Martin  Bucer." 


admitted  that  bread  and  wine  are  not  mere  signs,  but 
signa  exhibitiva.  While  the  bread  is  eaten  the  Body  of 
Christ  is  truly  offered  and  received.  The  union  between 
bread  and  wine  and  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  how- 
ever, does  not  consist  in  any  mixture  of  what  these 
heavenly  and  earthly  elements  are  in  their  true  essenti- 
ality, but  it  is  a  "sacramental  union."^* 

To  this  Confession  of  Bucer  Luther  could  not  object, 
because  he  also  rejected  the  impanation  theory  and  a 
Capernaitic  eating  and  drinking.^^  Nevertheless,  Bucer 
found  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  satisfy  Luther  who  feared 
that  the  phrase  "sacramental  presence"  might  be  used 
for  placing  a  spiritualistic  interpretation  upon  whatever 
the  other  side  might  admit  in  the  direction  of  the  Real 
Presence.  Bucer  soon  saw  that  he  could  expect  no  con- 
cessions to  the  Zwinglian  side  from  Luther.  To  make 
sure  that  he  would  not  be  deceived  with  spiritualistic  in- 
terpretations of  definitions  which  in  themselves  were  not 
objectionable  Luther  even  declared  through  Melanchthon, 
at  the  meeting  in  Cassel  (1535)  "that  in  and  with  the 
bread  the  Body  of  Christ  is  eaten  in  such  a  way  that  all 
which  the  bread  works  and  suffers  the  Body  of  Christ 
works  and  suffers;  that  the  Body  is  distributed,  eaten 
and  manducated  (mit  den  Zaehnen  zerhissen)  .^^    In  this 

14  Cf.  the  reports  by  Gruenberg  in  R.  E.  Ill,  609,  30;  by  Kolde 
in  R.  E.  XXI,  391,  14;  bv  Koestlin-Kawerau,  Martin  Luther  II,  330; 
Corp.  Ref.  II,  807.  827. 

15  See  Formula  of  Concord,  Epitome,  art.  VII,  Affirmative  6; 
Negative  20;  cf.  art.  VIII,  Aff.  12.     Solid  Decl.  VII,  64. 

16  De  Wette,  Briefe  Luthers  IV,  559f.  Melanchthon,  in  a  letter 
to  Cammerarius,  said  that  he  could  bring  this  message  only  as  a 
reporter  of  an  opinion  that  was  not  his  own  (nuntius  alienae  sen- 
tentiae").  Corp.  Ref.  II,  822.  Kawerau  says :  "Nowhere  else  has 
Luther  uttered  his  view  with  an  expression  that  sounds  so  offen- 
sive as  he  did  at  this  occasion.  It  is  true  that  he  used  the  same 
words  in  his  very  severe  controversy  with  Zwingli  in  his  Grosses 
Bekenntnis  vom  Abendmahl  (1528,  Luther's  Works.  Erl.  Ed.  XXX, 
p.  297),  but  not  without  immedfately  qualifying  his  statement.  At 
this  moment  he  chose  to  make  his  declaration  brief  and  sharp 
(schroff).  So  much  he  desired  reliablj'^  to  establish  the  actual  at- 
titude of  Bucer  to  his  teaching  and  to  ward  off  the  appearance  as 
if  people  who  are  opposed  to  it  had  united  with  him,  or  that  he 
himself  had  abandoned  his  original  position."  (Koestlin-Kawerau 
II,  329).  Compare  the  language  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  on  this 
subject  (Part  II,  Art.  VII,  105). 


10 

practice  of  painstaking  care  to  guard  the  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  Luther  continued  through  all  his  negotia- 
tions with  Bucer.  When  after  that  meeting  in  Cassel 
the  latter  defended  himself  by  employing  terms  that  were 
unobjectionable  Luther  wrote  characteristically:  "If 
they  mean  in  their  heart  what  their  words  say  then  I 
know  at  this  time  not  how  to  reproach  them."  Against 
the  pleading  of  Bucer  that  the  people  at  Strasburg  felt 
deeply  against  a  teaching  according  to  which  the  Body  of 
Christ  is  received  also  by  the  unbelievers  he  remained  un- 
yielding; all  that  Bucer  succeeded  in  wresting  from  Lu- 
ther at  that  final  conference  in  Wittenberg  (1536)  was 
the  permission  to  make  that  artificial  and  unmaintain- 
able distinction  between  unbelievers  and  unworthy?^ 

We  see  that  as  far  as  Luther  was  concerned  Bucer's  in- 
tention to  bring  about  a  union  by  compromise  was  not 
realized.  The  Wittenberg  Concord  is  a  Lutheran  docu- 
ment all  through. ''^     What  was  the  attitude  of  the  Swiss 

17  Wo  ihr  Herz  stehet  wie  die  Worte  lauten,  so  weiss  ich  auf 
diesmal  die  Worte  nicht  zu  strafen.     Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  331. 

18  Cf.  Gruenberg,  R.  E.  Ill,  609,  50.  Kolde  R.  E.  XXI,  394,  38. 
Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  340. 

19  Kolde,  R.  E.  XXI,  396,  36.  The  text  of  the  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord is  contained  in  the  Corp.  Ref.  Ill,  375ff-  It  is  translated  into 
English  in  Jacobs'  Book  of  Concord  (not  People's  Edition)  II,  253. 
We  miss  this  document  in  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom.  In  the 
Wittenberg  Concord  we  have,  first,  articles  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  first  article  says  that  with  (cum)  bread  and  wine 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood  are  truly  and  essentially  present,  offered 
and  received.  The  second  article  rejects  impanation  and  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Body  outside  of  the  action  in  the  Sacrament.  The 
third  teaches  the  Real  Presence  independent  of  the  worthiness  of 
the  servant  of  the  Church  and  of  the  receiver,  as  long  as  the  ad- 
ministration takes  place  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ. 
The  "unworthy"  receive  the  Sacrament  to  their  judgment.  There 
was  discussion  also  with  regard  to  Baptism,  particularly  with  re- 
gard to  infant  faith.  Here  they  agreed  "that  through  Baptism 
there  come  to  infants  the  forgiveness  of  original  sin,  and  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  who  is  efficacious  in  them  (the  children)  ac- 
cording to  their  measure Although  we   do  not  understand 

of  what  nature  this  action  of  God  in  infants  is,  nevertheless  it  is 

certain  that  in  them  new  and  holy  movements  are  wrought 

For  although  we  must  not  imagine  that  infants  understand,  never- 
theless these  movements  and  inclinations  to  believe  Christ,  and 
love  God,  are,  in  a  measure,  like  the  movements  of  faith  and  love. 
This  is  what  we  say  when  we  say  that  infants  have  faith.  For  we 
speak  thus  that  it  may  be  understood  that  infants  cannot  become 
holy  and  be  saved  without  the  divine  action  in  them."    The  Bap- 


11 

to  Bucer's  mediating  activity,  and  how  was  the  Witten- 
berg Concord  received  by  the  South  German  cities? 

We  hear  that  even  Zwingli,  when  Bucer  first  visited 
him  after  he  had  seen  Luther  in  Coburg  (1530),  admit- 
ted the  presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  the  Supper.  But  he 
qualified  his  statement  by  saying  that  it  was  not  a  bodily 
presence.-"  Fisher  says  correctly :  "Zwingli  was  not  the 
man  to  veil  his  opinions."-^  When  Bucer  soon  after- 
wards drew  up  a  formula  in  which  he  employed  the  words 
corpus  verum  Zwingli  objected,  at  first  moderately,--  but 
soon  in  very  strong  language.-^  Bullinger,  after  the 
death  of  Zwingli,  in  a  Confession  of  1534,  shows  a  cer- 
tain approach  to  the  Tetrapolitana.-*  But  he  is  far  from 
an  admission  of  the  Real  Presence  in  Luther's  sense.  In 
February  1536,  about  three  months  before  the  Witten- 
berg Concord  was  signed,  the  First  Helvetic  Confession 
was  composed.-^  In  this  Confession  there  was  progress 
over  the  original  position  of  Zwingli  in  that  the  Sacra- 
ments were  defined  as  consisting  not  only  in  signs,  but 
also  in  essential  things  to  be  communicated.  These  are 
the  "true  communion  of  His  Body  and  Blood,"  which  then 
is  qualified  as  Himself  given  to  the  believers  for  the 
strengthening  of  faith.-^  It  was  impossible  for  Bucer  to 
reconcile  Luther  to  such  statements. 

tism  in  case  of  extreme  necessity  (Nottaufe)  was  justified.  Pri- 
vate absolution  to  which  there  had  been  opposition  in  the  South 
was  admitted,  because  of  the  opportunity  it  affords  to  comfort  the 
spiritually  depressed  and  to  instruct  the  religiously  ignorant;  aur- 
icular confession  was  rejected.  (Meusel,  Kirchl.  Handlexikon  VII, 
p.  287.     Lutheran  Cyclopedia,  p.  545.     Kolde,  R.  E.  XXI,  395,  11). 

20  Kolde  in  R.  E.  XXI.  p.  388,  i. 

21  Fisher,  History  of  Doctrines,  p.  290. 

22  Kolde  ut  supra,  p.  389,  22. 

23  Ibid.  p.  389,  22-27. 

24  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  327. 

25  Bucer  himself  had  co-operated  in  the  construction  of  this 
document.  The  authors  agreed  that  it  should  not  be  published 
for  the  present  as  the  outcome  of  the  meeting  with  the  Lutherans 
(in  May)  was  to  be  awaited.  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  388f.  Kolde  ut 
supra,  p.  392,  45. 

26  This  Confession  is  contained  in  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christen- 
dom III,  2iiff.  Cf.  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  334.  Seeberg,  History  of 
Doctrines  II,  390.  Heppe.  ut  supra,  p.  84.  The  point  of  interest  is  in 
the  question  :  What  did  Bucer  mean  when  he  three  months  later 
agreed  to  the  terms  in  the  Wittenberg  Concord? 


12 

But  what  was  the  attitude  of  the  Cities  of  Upper  Ger- 
many to  the  Wittenberg  Concord?  After  hesitation  on 
the  part  of  some^^  all  subscribed.  But  those  of  the  Cities 
that  had  developed  in  their  Reformation  views  under  the 
influences  from  the  South  never  ceased  to  interpret  Art. 
X  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  light  of  that  median 
type  as  represented  in  the  Tetrapolitana,  which  always 
formed  the  background  for  Bucer's  approaches  to  the  Lu- 
theran position.^^  The  Real  Presence  was  to  them,  as  to 
Bucer,  a  spiritual  one.  As  Christ's  Body  is  spiritual  so 
there  was  to  them  only  one  way  of  receiving,  namely 
through  the  spirit  of  the  believer.^^ 

The  Wittenberg  Concord  failed  to  accomplish  the  union 
that  Bucer  was  laboring  for.  Luther  tried  for  a  number 
of  years  his  utmost  to  win  the  Swiss.  Up  to  two  years 
before  his  death  he  abstained  from  all  controversy  against 
the  Zwinglians  in  the  hope  that  by  such  attitude  a  union 
on  the  basis  of  the  Real  Presence  might  develop.^'^  But 
he  found  that  his  silence  was  more  and  more  interpreted 
as    an    abandonment    of    his    former    position.     Even 

27  Ulm,  for  instance,  where  they  talked  of  the  "new  doctrine" 
•which  their  representative  had  brought  home  from  Wittenberg. 
Kolde,  referring  to  his  book  Analecta  Lutherana,  p.  28of. 

28  Moeller's  Kirchengeschichte,  vol.  Ill  by  Kawerau,  p.  125. 

29  Cf.  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  39of.  Loofs,  p.  879.  Heppe,  pp. 
76,  48.  _ 

30  Here  is  of  special  interest  a  letter  which  Luther  wrote  un- 
der the  date  of  December  first,  1537,  to  the  followers  of  Zwingli  in 
Zuerich.  It  was  an  answer  to  a  letter  received  from  them,  in  which 
they  had  emphasized  their  conception  of  a  merely  spiritual  pres- 
ence in  the  Eucharist.  In  this  letter  Luther  prays  to  God  that  he 
might  be  permitted  to  complete  the  work  of  reconciliation  begun 
in  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  and  he  asks  them  to  work  for  the 
same  end.  For  himself  and  his  friends  he  promises  that  in  writing 
and  preaching  they  would  be  quiet  and  mild,  in  order  not  to  in- 
terfere with  the  development.  And,  referring  to  the  difference 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament,  he  wrote :  "Since  we  do  not  yet 
understand  each  other  fully,  it  is  well  to  exercise  mutual  kindness, 
and  always  hope  the  best  until  all  turpid  waters  have  fully  set- 
tled." The  letter  of  the  Swiss  is  given  in  Enders'  Briefwechsel 
XI,  I57f..  together  with  Luther's  answer  (Latin),  p.  157.  German 
in  the  Historic  des  Sakramentsstreits,  p.  400;  also  in  Enders  XI, 
294  and  in  Erl.  Ed.  of  Luther's  Works,  LV,  190.  Extracts  of  both 
letters  are  given  in  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  pp.  350  and  352;  also  in 
Planck,  Geschichte  des  Protestant.  Lehrbegriffs  III,  Book  8,  p. 
399ff- 


13 

Schwenkfeld  prided  himself  with  being  upon  common 
ground  with  him.^^  His  consent  to  removing  the  prac- 
tice of  elevation  at  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the 
Wittenberg  Churches  was  taken  as  proof  of  his  conver- 
sion to  the  spiritualistic  views  of  his  former  opponents.^^ 
In  the  publication  of  the  First  Helvetic  Confession  he  saw 
the  determination  of  Bullinger  and  his  friends  in  Zuerich 
to  resist  the  Real  Presence  conception.  Furthermore, 
since  that  meeting  in  Cassel  (1534),  referred  to  above, 
he  had  observed  with  growing  concern  the  changing  at- 
titude of  Melanchthon.^^ 

As  standard-bearer  of  the  Real  Presence  which  he  saw 
founded  in  the  Scriptures  and  which  he  always  regarded 
as  essential  to  his  system  of  teaching  he  feels  his  respon- 
sibility for  transmitting  it  to  the  Protestant  Church  of 
the  future.  In  1543  he  announced:  "After  so  many 
Confessions  which  I  have  published  I  must  send  out  one 
more;  I  shall  do  it  soon,  and  it  will  be  my  last."^*  As  a 
final  impulse  for  carrying  out  this  plan  there  came  into 
his  hands,  in  the  summer  of  1544,  a  document,  prepared 
by  Bucer  and  Melanchthon,  which  contained  articles  of 
faith  for  introducing  the  Reformation  in  the  city  of  Co- 
logne. Here  Bucer's  mediating  interpretation  of  the 
Real  Presence  was  openly  expressed,  with  an  ignoring 
even  of  the  Wittenberg  Concord.^"^    In  Sept.  1544  Luther 

31  Corp.  Ref.  Ill,  983flf.;  IV,  797-    De  Wette,  Briefe  V,  463,  613?- 

32  De  Wette,  Briefe  V,  236.    Corp.  Ref.  Ill,  488;  IV,  735- 

33  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  335.  Regarding  the  relation  of  Me- 
lanchthon's  Variata  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  the 
general  union  movement  see  Neve,  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  2o8flf. ; 
cf.  pp.  QlflF. 

34  De  Wette  V,  644f.  "Ich  muss  deshalb  nach  so  vielen  Be- 
kenntnissen,  die  ich  getan,  noch  eines  ausgehen  lassen;  das  will 
ich  ehestens  machen,  und  es  soil  mein  letztes  sein." 

35  Together  with  bread  and  wine  Christ  offers  truly  His  Body. 
He  who  firmly  believes  the  promise  receives  Christ's  Body  truly 
for  his  salvation.  There  was  nothing  said  of  a  receiving  also  by 
the  "unworthy."  Advice  was  given  to  dismiss  "all  fleshly  thoughts 
in  this  mystery."  Luther  characterized  the  document  with  the 
following  words :  Es  treibt  lange  viel  Geschwaetz  von  Nutzen, 
Frucht  und  Ehre  des  Sakraments,  aber  von  der  Substanz  mum- 
melt  es,  dass  man  nicht  vernehmen  soil,  was  es  davon  halte,  in 
aller  Maase  wie  die  Schwaermer  tun.  De  Wette,  Briefe  V,  572ff., 
577-     Corp.  Ref.  V,  313^-,  293,  304. 


14 

published  his  Brief  Confession  of  the  Lord's  Supper.^' 
In  very  sharp  language  he  rejects  the  teaching  of  Carl- 
stadt,  Zwingli,  Oecolampadius  and  Schwenkfeldt  (He 
calls  him  Stenkef eldt) ,  and  points  his  finger  at  "their 
disciples  in  Zuerich  and  wherever  they  are." 

This  publication  marks  the  final  failing  of  the  Witten- 
berg Concord  and  with  it  the  failing  of  the  union  move- 
ments of  the  sixteenth  century  as  far  as  the  relation  be- 
tween Lutherans  and  Reformed  is  concerned. 

There  is  a  question  that  forces  itself  upon  us,  and  this 
would  be  the  place  to  attempt  an  answer.  Why  was  Lu- 
ther so  unyielding  at  Marburg  and  here  in  his  dealing 
with  Bucer  and  with  the  Swiss  ?  To  charge  common  stub- 
bornness would  be  very  unhistorical.  Prof.  J.  P.  Fischer 
says  in  his  History  of  Doctrines  (p.290) :  "It  is  not  to  Lu- 
ther's discredit  that  he  had  no  relish  for  the  ambiguities 
of  compromise" ;  and  Phil.  Schaff,  writing  of  Bucer*^  says 
"He  labored  with  indefatigable  zeal  for  an  evangelical 
union  and  hoped  to  attain  it  by  elastic  compromise  form- 
ulas . . .  which  concealed  the  real  difference  and  in  the  end 
satisfied  neither  party."  No,  Luther  had  a  very  serious 
reason  for  his  unyielding  position.  He  stood  for  a  religi- 
ous interest  in  which  his  conscience  was  involved.  Prof. 
Kawerau,  himself  a  man  of  the  Prussian  Union,  in  dis- 
cussing the  Marburg  Coloquy,  has  a  fine  appreciation  of 
the  religious  interest  for  which  Luther  stood  in  his  con- 
flict with  Zwingli. 3^  The  Sacrament,  Kawerau  explains, 
was  to  Luther  an  act  in  which  God  incarnate  Himself 
condescends  to  seal  for  the  individual  the  forgiveness  of 
his  sins.  He  insists  upon  a  receiving  of  Christ's  Body 
also  by  the  unworthy  because,  as  he  said,  the  reality  of 
Christ's  appointed  gift  must  never  be  made  dependent 
upon  our  thinking  and  believing.^^  It  is  the  principle  of 
realism  that  goes  through  his  whole  system.    We  see  it 

36  Kurtz  Bekenntnis  D.  Martin  Luther's  vom  Heiligen  Sakra- 
ment.    ErI.  Ed.  XXXII,  379- 

37  Creeds  I,  526. 

38  Moeller,  Kirchengeschichte,  vol.  Ill,  by  Kawerau,  S'^a.  ed.,  p. 

89f. 

39  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  339. 


15 

in  his  conception  of  the  Word  as  a  means  of  grace  just  as 
much  as  in  his  teaching  of  the  Sacrament.  Stripped  of 
Luther's  conception  of  the  Real  Presence,  the  historical 
Lutheran  Church  goes  out  of  existence.  If  this  one  doc- 
trine is  untenable  then  a  whole  number  of  other  tenets  of 
Lutheranism,  that  are  based  upon  the  same  principle, 
must  go,  and  historical  Lutheranism  is  no  more.  Much 
of  what  is  called  Lutheranism  in  Germany  has  gradually 
become  another  thing,  simply  because  this  one  corner- 
stone, the  Real  Presence  and  what  goes  with  it,  has  been 
abandoned  or  has  been  relegated  to  the  sphere  of  indif- 
ference. It  is  of  special  interest  to  observe  that  the  dif- 
ferent Norwegian  bodies  of  Lutherans  in  our  country 
have  united  upon  the  old  historical  Lutheran  platform, 
and  that  the  English  speaking  bodies  of  Lutherans,  the 
General  Synod,  the  General  Council,  and  the  United 
Synod  of  the  South,  are  effecting  their  union  upon  the 
same  basis.  There  is  among  all  the  Lutheran  synods  of 
America  not  one  that  does  not  emphasize  Luther's  doc- 
trine of  the  Real  Presence;  not  simply  because  Luther 
taught  it — there  are  many  teachings  of  Luther,  which  the 
Lutheran  Church  has  not  symbolized — but  because  they 
accept  Luther's  principle  of  realism  in  exegesis  and  be- 
cause they  see  that  the  doctrines  of  Lutheranism  are  an 
organism  from  which  it  is  impossible  to  eliminate  one 
part  without  affecting  the  life  of  the  whole.  Luther 
stood  for  distinct  religious  interests,  he  could  not  yield, 
and  under  the  historical  circumstances  he  had  to  sound, 
before  his  death,  the  note  that  went  out  with  his  last  con- 
fession in  1544.  He  might  have  done  it  with  less  violence, 
but  his  declaration  that  he  was  yet  standing  upon  the 
old  ground  was  one  that  had  to  be  made. 

The  question  has  been  asked  whether  Bucer  was  sin- 
cere in  his  mediating  activities.  He  was  charged  with 
insincerity  both  from  the  Zwinglian  and  the  Lutheran 
side.  The  Zwinglians,  that  is  Bullinger  and  his  friends 
in  Zuerich,  mistrusted  his  interpretation  of  the  Witten- 
berg Concord,  and  in  a  meeting  at  Basle  (1536)  they  de- 
cided to  find  out  the  truth  by  submitting  his  statements 


16 

to  Luther/°  and  Bucer  had  times  when  it  was  hard  for 
him  to  convince  the  Swiss  of  his  honesty.*'  Luther,  on 
the  other  hand,  met  Bucer  with  much  distrust  at  Coburg 
(1530).  He  wrote:  Martin  Bucer  nihil  respondeo.*^ 
And  while  he  at  times  put  great  confidence  in  him  and 
welcomed  him  heartily  yet  there  were  moments  when  he 
feared  that  he  could  not  trust  him  and  that  he  had  to  test 
his  sincerity.*^  Even  after  the  agreement  upon  the  Wit- 
tenberg Concord  in  1536  he  felt  an  aversion  to  Bucer's 
diplomatic  activities  in  trying  to  win  the  Swiss  to  a 
recognition  of  the  new  basis  by  saying  that  a  real  differ- 
ence between  the  two  sides  was  not  existing,  and  he  ad- 
monished him  to  desist  from  representations  not  quite  in 
harmony  with  truth.**  Amsdorf  and  Osiander  had  no 
confidence  in  Bucer.  The  charge  of  insincerity  has  been 
repeated  by  many  historians.  To  arrive  at  a  fair  judg- 
ment we  need,  of  course,  to  think  of  the  difficulty  of  the 
task  he  had  set  before  himself.  Then  we  need  to  consider 
that  when  he  spoke  of  a  truly  "essential"  presence  of 
Christ's  Body  (purposely  avoiding  Luther's  term  "sub- 
stantial") he  always  meant  by  that  only  a  spiritiml  pres- 
ence.*"' When  he  rejected  consubstantiation*"  he  meant 
by  that  more  than  the  Formula  of  Concord  does.  This 
was  Luther's  constant  fear.  But  if  we  remember  the 
persistency  with  which  he  in  all  his  dealings  with  Luther 
did  reject  consubstantiation  and  emphasized  a  sacramen- 
tal union  (which  however,  in  his  mind  was  not  quite  the 
same  as  what  the  Lutherans  understood  by  that  term), 
if  we  call  to  our  mind  the  letter  which  he  wrote  to  Lu- 
ther after  that  meeting  with  Melanchthon  in  Cassel 
(1534),*^  in  which  he  frankly  explained  to  what  extent 

40  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  350. 

41  Kolde  R.  E.  XXI,  398,  24. 

42  Enders'  Briefwechsel  VIII,  258. 

43  See  Kolde  ut  supra,  393,  25.    Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  331,  338. 

44  Ibid.  351. 

45  Ibid.  348. 

46  Ibid.  330.    Corp.  Ref.  II,  8o9f ;  cf.  826f.    Referred  to  by  Kolde 
ut  supra  391,  17-30. 

47  Quoted  in  extract  by  Koestlin-Kawerau  II,  331, 


17 

only  he  could  agree  with  him,  if  we  finally  think  of  how 
he  at  that  meeting  at  Wittenberg  (1536)  when  Luther  in- 
sisted upon  a  receiving  of  the  Body  also  by  the  unbe- 
lievers, consented  only  to  a  receiving  by  the  unworthy, 
by  which  he  meant  those  "who  are  in  the  Church  and  have 
faith,  yet  do  not  discern  the  Lord's  Body,  do  not  properly 
estimate  this  gift  of  Christ"  :*^  it  seems  to  us  that  in 
consideration  of  all  this  it  cannot  be  maintained  that 
Bucer  was  intentionally  insincere.  He  honestly  believed 
that  there  was  a  middle  ground  upon  which  Luther  and 
his  opponents  could  meet  if  they  only  understood  each 
other.*^  His  was  the  Strasburg  type  of  teaching.  He 
stands  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation  as  "the  great 
compromise  theologian"  (Seeberg  H,  390),  but  because 
there  is  no  middle  ground  between  the  realistic  and  the 
spiritualistic  position^"  he  became  "the  stepping  stone  to 
Calvinism. ^^  The  fact  is  that  Bucer  regarded  the  whole 
object  of  controversy  as  of  only  minor  importance.  His 
biographer  in  the  R.  E.  says :  He  had  more  appreciation 
of  Luther's  occasional  stubbornness  than  of  his  religious 
motives  in  the  matter.  For  this  reason  he  was  always  so 
easily  ready  for  large  concessions  and  for  ever  new  for- 
mulations.^^ 

The  Wittenberg  Concord  failed  and  yet  there  is  trace- 
able to  this  document  and  its  negotiations  a  number  of 
positive  results  which  we  shall  enumerate  at  the  close  of 
this  discussion:  (1)  The  polemics  between  Luther  and 
his  opponents  ceased  for  a  number  of  years,  (2)  This 
served  for  the  strengthening  of  the  Smalcald  Federation. 
(3)  The  cities  of  Upper  Germany  were  drawn  into  a 
common  confessional  interest  with  the  Lutherans.     (4) 

48  Ibid.  348;  cf.  Luth.  Cyclopedia,  p.  545. 

49  With  regard  to  whether  Bucer  was  sincere  see  Gruenberg 
in  R.  E.  Ill,  610,  32flF. 

50  It  is  not  without  interest  for  the  student  of  the  History  of 
Doctrines  to  observe  that  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity  there 
were  in  the  Church  the  two  views,  the  realistic  and  the  spiritual- 
istic. In  Irenaeus  for  instance  we  have  Luther's  realistic  position 
while  in  Origen  we  have  the  spiritualistic  teaching  of  Berengar, 
Zwingli,  Bullinger,  and  Calvin. 

51  Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte  879. 

52  Gruenberg  in  R.  E.  Ill,  610,  4off. 


18 

Thus  a  way  was  paved  for  future  Calvinistic  influences 
upon  German  Protestantism.  (5)  Melanchthon  became 
encouraged  in  his  eflforts  at  modifying  original  Lutheran- 
ism.^*  (6)  Philip  of  Hessia  also  was  encouraged  in  the 
endeavors  which  he  inaugurated  at  Marburg.  It  is, 
therefore,  only  historically  logical  that  in  centuries  fol- 
lowing Hessia  (or  parts  of  Hessia)  introduced  the  union. 

(7)  But  it  may  also  be  traced  to  the  negotiations  leading 
to  the  Wittenberg  Concord  that  later  in  the  Prussian 
Union  as  in  the  union  movements  in  other  parts  of  Ger- 
many Lutheranism  became  the  predominating  element.^* 

(8)  The  most  important  among  the  positive  results  was 
the  lesson  that  a  union  by  compromise  between  Lutherans 
and  Reformed,  doctrinally  speaking,  is  an  impossibility. 
If  in  following  centuries  any  union  between  Lutherans 
and  Reformed  did  succeed  it  was  not  by  a  compromise  in 
the  field  of  doctrine. 

53  '"Bucerism  is  the  contemporaneous  pendant  of  Melanchthon- 
ean  Lutheranism,"  Seeberg  II,  393-  Cf.  Heppe  75,  84.  Koestlin- 
Kawerau  II,  328. 

54  Cf.  Heppe  82. 


CHAPTER  11. 

LUTHERANISM  IN  ITS  STRUGGLE  WITH  CALVINISM. 

Literature:  Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines  H,  390ff., 
386ff.  Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte  (4th  ed.),  875ff.,  902ff. 
Thomasitcs,  Dogmengeschichte  II,  (2nd  ed.  by  Seeberg), 
543ff.,  556ff.,  638ff.  Kurtz,  Kirchengeschichte,  (14th  ed., 
1909,  from  Reformation  on  revised  by  Tschackert),  161, 
152.  English  edition  of  1888,  §§  141,  144,  154.  Moel- 
ler,  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte,  vol.  Ill,  by  Ka- 
werau  (3rd  ed.),  181ff.,  299ff.  C.  W.  Hering,  Geschichte 
der  Kirchlichen  Unionsversuche  1836,  1,  184ff.,  258fF. 
Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom  I,  554ff.,  536f.  Plitt,  Ein- 
leitung  in  die  Augustana  II,  79-102,  Fritschel,  Formula  of 
Concord,  Luth.  Pub.  Soc'y,  Phila.,  1916,  pp  181-193 ;  194- 
202 ;  203-212.  Cf .  extract  of  Fritschel's  book  in  Neve,  In- 
troduction to  Luth.  Symbolics  (2nd  ed.  will  appear  under 
different  title),  Luth.  Book  Concern,  Columbus,  O.,  pp. 
384-428.  On  Altered  and  Unaltered  Ausburg  Confes- 
sion, see  the  same  book,  86-100,  cf.  207-210.  Kricske, 
Johann  von  Lasko  und  der  Sakramentsstreit,  Leipzig, 
1901.  Wangemann,  Joh.  Sigismund  und  Paul  Gerhardt, 
1-100.  Stahl,  Luth.  Kirche  und  die  Union,  107-123.  G. 
W.  Richards,  The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  Phila.,  1913,  pp. 
32ff.,  77ff.  The  following  articles  in  HsiUck,Realencyclo- 
paedie  der  Protestantischen  Theologie  und  Kirche 
(quoted  as  R.  E.)  deal  with  the  matters  of  this  chapter: 
"Joachim  Westphal"  by  Kawerau  (XX,  185ff.)  ;  "Hard- 
enberg"  by  Bertheau  (VII,  408ff.)  ;  "Tilemann  Hesshu- 
sen"  by  Hackenschmidt  (VIII,  8ff)  ;  "Naumberger  Fuer- 
stentag"  by  Kawerau  (XIII,  661ff.)  ;  "Melanchthon"  by 
Kim    (XII,   513ff.)  ;  "Philippisten"   by   Kawerau    (XV, 

(19) 


80 

322ff.)  ;  "Krell"  by  Weiss  (XI,  85ff.)  ;  "Orthodoxie"  by 
Burger  (XIV,  495ff.)  ;  "Neostadiensium  Admonitio"  by 
Muller  (XIII,  709f.)  ;  "Protestantismus"  by  Kattenbusch 
(XVI,  1621.)  ;  "Heidelberger  Katechismus"  by  Lauter- 
burg  (X,  164ff.) 


Before  we  proceed  to  discuss  the  union  movements  in 
the  age  of  George  Calixtus  and  in  the  century  that  fol- 
lowed, we  have  to  insert  a  chapter  on  the  new  doctrinal 
conflict  that  was  inaugurated  by  the  appearance  of  Cal- 
vinism. Whatever  in  coming  centuries  worked  for  union 
between  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  or  for  a  spirit  of  toler- 
ation between  the  two  Churches,  it  had  reference  to  the 
relation  between  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism. 


I.      CALVINISM  AS  A  NEW  TYPE  OF  PROTESTANTISM. 


With  the  activities  of  Martin  Bucer  there  had  been  cre- 
ated in  Strasburg  a  "median  type  of  theology"  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  first  chapter  of  these  discussions.^  The  spe- 
cial feature  of  this  theology  with  regard  to  the  Eucharist 
was  the  emphasis  upon  the  spiritual  receiving  of  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood,  conditioned  on  the  faith  of  the  com- 
municant. Now  let  us  keep  in  mind  that  Calvin  was  in 
Strasburg  from  1538  to  1541.  But  already  before  his 
coming  there  he  had  received  decisive  influences  from 
Bucer.^  But  with  the  ascendency  of  Calvin,  Bucer's  the- 
ology was  almost  everywhere  merged  in  Calvinism,  and 
so  it  was  Calvin  who  became  the  chief  representative  of 
that  mediating  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which 
characterized  the  South  West  of  Germany.^     We  may  say 

1  Compare  again  Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines,  II,  39of. 

2  Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte,  p.  878.  Cf.  Calvin's  discussion  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  first  edition  (1536)  of  his  Institutiones 
IV,  17,  §5. 

3  See  also  Hering,  Geschichte  der  kirchl.  Unionsversuche  I, 
i86flf. 


21 

that  Calvinism  was  simply  the  higher  form  of  Bucerism. 

We  can,  therefore,  understand  that  for  a  time  Calvin 
could  be  regarded  as  an  "Upper-German  Lutheran"  (ein 
oberdeutscher  Lutheraner)  .*  The  influences  from  Lu- 
ther are  clearly  traceable  in  Calvin.^  Seeberg  also  writes : 
"Calvin,  like  Bucer,  drew  his  first  inspiration  from  Lu- 
ther. Luther's  ideas  moulded  him  in  a  general  way  as  a 
theologian  and  also  in  his  views  of  particular  doctrines. 
Yet  he  was  a  Lutheran  only  in  the  same  sense  as  Bucer. 
Or,  we  may  say,  the  impulses  which  made  Calvin  a  theo-: 
logian  and  churchman  proceeded  not  only  from  the  influ- 
ences of  Luther,  but  also  from  that  conception  of  religion 
and  of  the  Church  and  her  duty  which  prevailed  at  Stras- 
burg."^ 

Then  (1541)  Calvin  followed  the  call  back  to  Geneva. 
Here  he  succeeded  in  effecting  a  doctrinal  agreement  with 
Bullinger  and  the  followers  of  Zwingli  in  Zurich,  which 
was  expressed  in  the  Consensus  TiguHnus  of  1549.  This 
confessional  document  is  pronounced  by  E.  Staehelin  "the 
solemn  act  by  which  the  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  refor- 
mations were  joined  in  everlasting  wedlock  as  the  one 
great  Reformed  Church."^  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Sup- 
per there  was  in  that  Consenszis,  with  regard  to  the  form 
of  expression,  an  approach  to  Zwingli;  but  in  substance 
we  have  here  the  teaching  of  Calvin  as  a  further  develop- 
ment of  Zwingli's  conception  after  the  manner  of  Bucer's 
meditation.* 

For  lack  of  space  we  cannot  here  develop  and  review  in 
detail  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  its  dis- 
tinction from  or  its  relation  to  that  of  Luther.     We  refer 

4  Cf.  Loofs,  p.  877,  879;  also  Thomasius-Seeberg,  Dogmenge- 
schichte  II,  547. 

5  Lang,  Bekehrung  Calvins,  47flF.,  referred  to  by  Seeberg  and 
Loofs. 

6  History  of  Dictrines  II,  393. 

7  Staehelin,  Johann  Calvin  II,  121. 

8  The  text  of  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  is  omitted  by  Schaff  in 
his  Creeds  of  Christendom,  chiefly  because  of  its  length.  It  is 
given  by  Niemeyer  in  his  collection  of  Reformed  Confessions,  pp. 
123-310.  Cf.  Thomasius-Seeberg  II,  547f.  Seeberg  II,  417.  Loofs, 
p.  896.    Hering  I,  I96f. 


22 

the  reader  to  the  last  chapter  of  these  essays.  But  for  a 
brief  characterization  we  may  say  that  Calvin  did  not 
hesitate  to  call  Zwingli's  merely  figurative  conception 
profane.^  The  signs  in  the  Sacrament  are  not  empty, 
but  they  offer  what  they  signify.  As  bread  and  wine 
nourish  the  body  so  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  nourish  the 
soul.  Calvin  even  spealcs  of  a  presence  of  Christ's  Body 
in  the  Eucharist.  But  it  is  not  a  real  Presence,  because 
the  Body  is  far  removed  from  us  in  space ;  it  is  a  presence 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  when  we  have  faith  and  in  faith 
are  drawn  to  Christ.  Even  then  the  body  is  not  received, 
but  the  spirtual  influences  that  proceed  from  the  Christ 
in  whose  presence  the  believer  is.  Seeberg  remarks  "The 
difference  is  always  equally  manifest — Calvin  having  in 
mind  the  spiritual  influence,  and  Luther  the  real  bodily 
presence."  ^^ 


II.      THE   FIRST    CONFLICT   BETWEEN    CALVINISM    AND 
LUTHERANISM. 


Calvin's  influence  soon  began  to  be  felt  outside  of 
Switzerland,  especially  in  England,  France  and  the  Neth- 
erlands. It  also  extended  to  Germany,  the  activities  of 
Bucer  in  connection  with  the  Wittenberg  Concord  offer- 
ing the  point  of  connection.  At  first  there  was  on  the 
part  of  the  Lutherans  no  protest  against  the  Confessio 
Tigurinus,  nor  against  any  writing  of  Calvin  that  had 
appeared  before  the  publication  of  this  new  Confession. 
In  1540  he  had  published  a  French  tract  on  the  Supper, 
which  he  republished  in  Latin  in  the  year  of  Luther's 
death  (1546).  Here  he  had  emphasized  a  real  presence 
and  a  real  receiving  of  Body  and  Blood.  But  in  1548  he 
published  this  writing  in  a  new  edition  with  larger  em- 

9  Corp.  Ref.  XXXIX,  438. 

10  II,  414;  cf.  Calvin's  Institutiones  IV,  17,  §5.  Hering  I,  1S4S., 
197. 


23 

phasis  upon  a  purely  spiritual  receiving."  Some  may 
not  yet  have  been  famliar  with  these  writings;  others — 
the  followers  of  Melanchthon — favored  the  Strasburg 
type  of  teaching,  which  seemed  simply  to  be  reflected  in 
the  position  of  Calvin ;  and  again  others,  who  were  guard- 
ing zealously  the  purity  of  Luther's  doctrine,  may  have 
been  waiting  for  some  one  to  take  up  the  controversy. 

This  one  finally  appeared  when  in  1552  Joachim  West- 
phal,  of  Hamburg,  began  his  polemical  activity  against 
Calvin.^'  The  first  publication  of  WestphaP^  was  fol- 
lowed the  next  year  by  another  writing^*  of  the  same  au- 
thor. Then  something  occurred  that  brought  Calvin, 
who  so  far  had  ignored  Westphal,  into  active  warfare 
against  the  Lutheran  party  in  Germany.  John  von 
Lasko,  a  Pole,  who  as  an  adherent  of  Calvin  had  been 
serving  a  Protestant  congregation  in  London  under  Ed- 
ward IV,  had  to  flee  from  "Bloody  Mary"  (1553),  and  he, 
with  175  members  of  his  congregation  made  application 
for  permission  to  settle  on  the  continent.  He  applied 
first  in  Denmark,  but  was  refused.  With  the  same  result 
the  fugitives  applied  in  a  number  of  cities  in  the  North- 
ern part  of  Germany.  The  Lutheran  governments  every- 
where feared  that  Lasko's  outspoken  dissent  from  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  might  result  in 
schismatic  movements  that  would  destroy  the  peace  of 
Church  and  State.  In  that  day  religious  union  was  re- 
garded as  necessary  to  political  union.  This  treatment 
of  Lasko  and  his  followers  became  the  occasion  for  Cal- 
vin to  attack  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.  He 
did  it  in  his  Defensio,  etc.,  of  1555,^^  and  in  writings  that 

11  Cf.  Koestlin-Kawerau,  Martin  Luther  II,  577.    Hering  I,  196. 

12  See  Kurtz,  Church  History,  1888,  §141,  10;  latest  German  edi- 
tion (14th,  1906)  §161,  10.  Kawerau  in  W.  Moeller,  Kirchenge- 
schichte  III,  i86,  281. 

13  The  title  was  Farrago  Confuseanarum,  etc.,  5  volumes.  For 
a  characterization  of  the  work  see  Kawerau  in  R.  E.  XXI,  186,  36. 

14  Recta  Fides,  etc. 

15  Printed  in  Corp.  Ref.  XXXVII,  iff.;  cf.  Kawerau  in  R.  E. 
XXI,  187,  33. 


94 

followed^*'  with  such  superciliousness  of  spirit^^  that  it 
developed  into  a  heated  controversy  between  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists,  with  many  theologians  of  both  sides  par- 
ticipating/^ Calvin  replied  in  a  third  and  last  writing, 
Ultima  Admonitio,  etc,,^^  in  which,  among  other  things 
he  said  that  he  received  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the 
sense  as  it  had  been  interpreted  by  its  own  author,  mean- 
ing by  that  the  Variata  edition  which  he,  with  others, 
had  subscribed  at  the  Colloquy  in  Worms,  1540.^°  This 
is  especially  interesting,  because  it  shows  that  Calvin 
wanted  to  be  a  Lutheran.  And  we  can  see  how  the  Lu- 
therans, in  their  struggle  with  Calvinism,  were  driven  to 
demand  the  recognition  of  the  Unaltered  edition  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  Invariata.^^ 

The  silence  of  Melanchthon  in  this  whole  controversy 
gave  him  and  his  followers  in  general  the  name  "Crypto- 
Calvinists."  Since  the  days  of  Calvin's  stay  at  Stras- 
burg,  Melanchthon  had  begun  more  and  more  to  lean  to 
him,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  Supper.  So  we  can 
understand  how  this  controversy  embarrassed  him.  The 
embarrassment  was  increased  still  more  when  Gallus,  of 
Regensburg,  published  a  book  in  which  he  collated  from 
former  writings  of  Melanchthon  how  he  fiad  expressed 
himself  against  Zwingli's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

i6.  Secunda  Defensio  in  Corp.  Ref.  XXXVII,  4iff.;  cf.  R.  E. 
XXI,  i88,  26. 

17  Admitted  even  by  an  advocate  of  Calvin  as  Hering,  I,  203. 

18  Kruske,  Joh.  V.  Lasko  und  der  Sakramentsstreit.  Leipzig, 
1901.  As  to  the  alleged  w^rong  done  to  Lasko  and  his  fellow- 
fugitives,  Kav^erau  (R.  E.  XXI,  187,  8)  asks  whether  under  like 
circumstances  Calvinistic  governments  would  not  have  acted  as 
did  the  Lutherans.  In  that  day  Church  and  civil  government 
were  so  interwoven  that  dissension  in  the  Church  always  meant 
disturbance  for  the  government.  We  would  also  remark  that 
in  reporting  this  affair  it  should  never  have  been  omitted  that 
Lutherans  in  the  different  cities  kept  the  fugitives  for  weeks  and 
supported  them  to  the  best  of  their  ability.     See  Hering  I,  200. 

19  Corp.  Ref.  XXXVII,  i37ff.,  cf.  R.  E.  XXI,  188,  31. 

20  R.  E.  XXI,  187,  59.  Kawerau  in  Moeller's  Kirchengeschichte 
III,  141.  Salig,  Augsb'g  Conf.  I,  491.  Staehelin,  Joh.  Calvin  I,  234. 
Corp.  Ref.  IV,  33flf-;  XLIII,  305. 

21  On  this  subject  cf.  Neve,  Introduction  to  Lutheran  Symbol- 
ics, pp.  QSflF. 

22  R.  E.  XXI,  188,  27. 


n 


A  similar  publication  was  issued  by  Westphal.  Later  in 
this  chapter  (sub  7)  we  shall  discuss  Melanchthonianism 
in  its  relation  to  Calvinism  more  in  detail  and  in  a  con- 
nected way. 

The  step  of  Westphal  of  publicly  calling  attention  to 
the  fundamental  difference  between  Calvin's  view  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  that  held  by  Luther  has  been  criticized 
by  Reformed  writers  up  to  the  present  time.^^  But 
Westphal  certainly  has  been  justified  by  history  even  to 
this  day.  Among  the  many  Lutheran  synods  of  America 
there  can  be  no  longer  union  except  on  the  basis  of  the  old 
historic  Lutheranism  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Much  as  we  may  regret  the  bitterness 
of  the  conflict,  history,  as  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of 
Lutheranism,  has  shown  that  Westphal  performed  a  most 
needed  service  to  the  Church.  Kawerau  says:  "If  he 
had  not  done  it  some  one  else  would."^*  It  opened  the  eyes 
of  Lutheran  Germany  to  the  silent  propaganda  for  Cal- 
vin's doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  it  revealed  the 
fact  that  Melanchthon  and  his  followers  were  willing  to 
trade  Luther's  conception  for  the  teaching  of  Calvin.  It 
taught  the  Lutherans  the  necessity  for  insisting  upon  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  In  brief,  it  spelled  the 
beginning  of  the  end  of  Calvin's  dominion  over  Ger- 
many,^^  or  at  least  limited  it  to  a  narzow  territory.-^ 
Calvin  who,  in  his  replies  to  Westphal,  wrote  as  if  West- 
phal's  activity  was  of  no  account  certainly  had  deceived 
himself  as  to  the  vitality  of  the  old  Lutheran  position." 


III.      THE  INROADS  OF  CALVINISM   UPON  LUTHERAN 
TERRITORY. 

We  can  easily  understand  that  Calvin's  view  of  the 

23  Cf.  Dalton,  Miscellanen,  1905,  p.  302flF. 

24  R.  E.  XXI,  186,  60. 

25  Kruske,  ut  supra,  p.  83. 

26  Kawerau  in  R.  E.  XXI,  186,  57. 

27  See  Hering,  p.  203. 


26 

Sacrament  maintained  itself  in  the  south-west  of  Ger- 
many where  for  decades  Bucerism  had  had  its  adherents. 
But  it  extended  also  to  other  parts  of  Germany,  to  Bre- 
men, for  instance,  where  a  conflict  occurred  between  Har- 
denberg  and  his  strictly  Lutheran  opponents.^^  The  po- 
sition taken  by  Hardenberg  is  of  special  interest.  He 
corresponded  much  with  Melanchthon,  and,  when  driven 
to  a  definite  statement,  he  rejected  Luther's  doctrine  of 
the  Real  Presence,  refusing  to  accept  by  oath  the  tenth 
article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  He  declared  that  he 
could  accept  the  Bible  only.  The  Augsburg  Confession, 
he  said,  was  a  product  of  the  time,  composed  to  please  the 
emperor  and  the  pope,  this  being  particularly  true  of 
Art.  X  which  contains  too  much  of  the  Roman  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation.^^ 

We  cannot  here  relate  the  whole  history  of  how  Bre- 
men was  lost  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  must  refer  the 
reader  to  the  literature  on  that  subject.  Bezel,  a  Me- 
lanchthonian  of  Wittenberg,  was  called  as  pastor.  He 
introduced  a  catechism  which  taught  Calvinism  under 
Melanchthonian  forms  of  expression.  Later  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism  was  accepted.  At  first  Bremen  refused 
to  be  called  Calvinistic,  but  soon  the  ministers  accepted 
even  Calvin's  doctrine  of  Predestination  and  Bremen 
was  regularly  represented  at  the  Synod  of  Dort.^" 

As  Hardenberg  was  out  of  place  in  north  Ger- 
many so  was  Hesshusius  a  misfit  in  the  south-west  (at 
Heidelberg)  where  moderation  would  have  done  better 
service  for  the  Lutheran  Church.^^  Hesshusius  was  one 
of  the  most  combative  of  Lutheran  theologians.     When 

28  Read  in  Kurtz,  Engl,  edition,  §144,  2;  last  German  edition 
(1906),  §152,  2.  Moeller-Kawerau,  Kirchengeschichte  III  (1907),  p. 
306.  Tschackert,  Entstehung,  etc.,  pp.  537ff.  Cf.  Hering,  ut  supra,  I, 
204-212;  also  article  "Hardenberg"  in  R.  E.  VII. 

29  Cf.  Hering  I,  205f. 

30  Since  1638,  through  the  efforts  of  a  Danish  prince,  the  Dom 
was  given  over  to  the  many  citizens  that  had  refused  to  leave  the 
Lutheran  Church. 

31  Cf.  Richards,  Heidelberg  Catechism,  1913,  p.  39flF. 


37 

his  arguments  were  not  received  he  threatened  with  phys- 
ical violence,  and  he  even  led  his  followers  into  riots.^^ 
At  the  end  of  his  life  he  regretted  that  he  had  not  re- 
buked more  severely  the  errorists  (die  Rotteng sister) . 
Somewhere  in  these  discussions  we  must  try  to  find  an 
explanation  of  the  severity  of  Lutheran  polemics  that 
characterized  the  controversies  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries.  Here  we  cannot  permit  the  in- 
terruption. Let  us  see  how  the  Palatinate  was  lost  to 
the  Lutheran  Church.  Elector  Frederick  IIL  had  dis- 
missed Hesshusius  and  had  begun  to  feel  opposed  to  a 
strict  Lutheranism.  At  the  Day  of  Princes  at  Naumburg 
he  favored  the  Augustana  Variata  as  against  the  Invari- 
ata.^^  He  studied  for  himself  the  different  views  on  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Finally  the  arguments  of  a  physician 
(who  had  written  a  book  on  the  subject)  together  with 
a  Theological  Estimate  (Gutachten)  from  Melanchthon 
(Corp.  Ref.  IX,  960),  helped  him  to  decide  for  Calvinism 
(1561).^*Now  Caspar  Olevianus  and  Zach.  Ursinus,  the 
makers  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  were  called.  The 
church  service  was  adapted  to  Calvinistic  ideals:  Paint- 
ings, baptismal  fonts,  altars  were  removed,  and  the 
organs  closed.  The  opposing  ministers  were  driven  from 
the  country  and  Reformed  ministers  from  other  coun- 
tries were  put  in  their  place.^^  The  loss  of  the  Palatinate 
was  a  severe  blow  to  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  crypto-Calvinistic  agitations  were  also  extended 
to  Electoral  Saxony  where  Melanchthon  and  his  school  at 
Wittenberg  had  been  working  into  the  hands  of  Calvin 
with  all  kinds  of  machinations.^"     The  repulsive  charac- 

32  Hackenschmidt  in  R.  E.  VIII,  p.  9,  11;  p.  10,  20. 

33  See  Kawerau  in  R.  E.  XIII,  664. 

34  Hering  I,  221.  Melanchthon  wrote:  "It  is  not  difficult,  but 
dangerous  to  answer."  Cf.  Kahnis,  Der  Innere  Gang  des  Deutschen 
Protestantismus  I,  54;  cf.  Corp.  Ref.  IX,  961.  Richards,  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  p.  4if. 

35  Moeller-Kawerau  III,  30iflf. ;  Kurtz,  Engl.  ed.  §144,  i;  German 
ed.  (1906)  §152,  I.  Tschackert,  539;  article  on  "Tilemann  Heshu- 
sius"  in  R.  E.  VIII. 

36  Read  Kurtz,  Engl.,  §141,  10,  13;  German,  §161,  4,  10,  13. 
Fritschel,  Formula  of  Concord,  pp.  52,  177,  181,  i83flF. 


23 

ter  of  their  duplicity  in  this  propaganda  is  nowhere  more 
graphically  described  than  by  Geo.  J.  Fritschel,  in  his 
book,  "Formula  of  Concord."^''  To  be  historically  fair 
it  must  be  admitted  that  there  was,  on  the  part  of  the 
Melanchthonians,  an  element  of  self-defense.^®  The 
Flacianists  were  setting  the  stage  for  their  destruction. 
But  their  aim  was,  under  the  guise  of  general  Bucerian 
and  Melanchthonian  terms  to  displace  Luther's  doctrine 
of  the  Real  Presence  by  the  doctrine  of  Calvin,  and  they 
knew  that  by  doing  so  they  were  deceiving  the  Elector 
August  of  whom  they  knew  that  he  was  trusting  them  to 
preserve  the  genuine  Lutheran  doctrine.^^  The  anony- 
mously published  Exegesis  Perspiciui,  given  in  extract  by 
Fritschel  (pp.  189-193),  finally  brought  their  plan  into 
the  open.  A  great  protest  arose.  The  eyes  of  the  elec- 
tor were  opened  with  the  result  that  the  Melanchthonians 
were  driven  from  Wittenberg  and  their  leaders  impris- 
oned.*°  A  thanksgiving  service  in  all  churches  and  a 
memorial  coin  celebrated  the  victory  of  Lutheranism 
over  Calvinism  in  Saxony  (1574).*^  A  new  attempt  un- 
der Elector  Christian  I,  who  had  married  into  the  family 
of  the  Elector  of  the  Palatinate  met  at  first  with  success, 
but  it  came  to  naught  under  the  prince  that  followed  him. 
Here  chancellor  Nicholas  Krell  had  been  the  moving 
power  for  the  Calvinistic  party.  He  was  incarcerated  and 
after  ten  years  of  prison  life  executed.  In  this  case,  how- 
ever, political  conditions  contributed  to  the  tragedy.  But 
that  among  the  charges  his  confessional  activities  were 
conspicuous  may  be  judged  from  the  blade  of  the  sword 
with  which  he  was  decapitated,  which  is  shown  in  the 
Dresden  Museum,  and  which  bears  the  inscription :  "Cave 

37  Luth.  Publ.  Soc'y,  Phila.,  1916,  pp.  182-93. 

38  Kaweraii  in  R.  E.  XV,  327,  44. 

39  R.  E.  XV,  328,  5.   . 

40  Peucer,  the  son-in-law  of  Melanchthon,  who  as  physician 
and  trusted  adviser  of  the  elector  had  been  the  right  hand  of  the 
Melanchthonians  had  to  suffer  in  prison  for  twelve  years. 

41  See  Moeller-Kawerau  III,  29off.  Kutrz,  Engl.,  §141,  10. 
Tschackert  548f. 


Calviniane."     The  records  of  this  execution  constitute  a 
dark  page  in  the  history  of  Lutheranism.*'* 

IV.      A    FEW    CONSIDERATIONS    FOR    THE    APPRECIATION    OP 
THE  CONFLICT. 


Judged  from  a  large  view-point  it  can  not  be  denied 
that  in  this  whole  conflict  Lutheranism  was  on  the  de- 
fensive. Historic  Lutheranism  had  to  fight  for  its  life. 
There  was  a  plan  to  crowd  it  out  of  Germany  and  to  sup- 
plant it  by  another  type  of  Protestantism.  The  Calvin- 
ists  wanted  to  be  recognized  as  the  real  Lutheranism,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  they  taught  only  a  "spiritual  pres- 
ence" in  place  of  Luther's  "Real  Presence."  The  differ- 
ence between  the  two  conceptions  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  clouded  by  the  employment  of  Bucero-Melanchthon- 
ian  forms  of  expression.  It  was  this  plan  that  Luther- 
anism had  to  expose  in  order  to  save  its  own  life.  Very 
characteristic  is  the  case  of  Frederick  III  in  the  Palati- 
nate. When  the  Lutheran  estates  at  the  diet  of  Augs- 
burg, in  1564,  accused  him  that  he  had  broken  the  Augs- 
burg Religious  Peace  Treaty  of  1555  by  introducing  Cal- 
vinism into  his  country,  he  replied  that  he  had  never  read 
Calvin's  writings,  that  he  did  not  know  what  Calvinism 
was,  and  that  he  still  held  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
(Variata) ,  as  he  had  done  at  Naumburg.'*^  And  yet  only 
the  year  before  he  had  publicly  introduced  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism !  There  was  certainly  something  to  be  cleared 
up. 

It  may  seem  strange  that  in  our  discussions  we  are  al- 
ways speaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  if  this  were  the 
only  distinguishing  doctrine  between  Lutheranism  and 
Calvinism.     But  we  must  remember  that  we  are  dealing 

42  See  article  "Krell"  in  R.  E.  XI,  8sff.    Read  Kurtz,  Engl.,  §141, 
13.     Moeller-Kawerau  III,  297. 

43  Cf.  Kurtz,  German  ed.  §152,  i.    Richards,  ut  supra,  p.  44. 


so 

with  the  relation  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  in 
Germany.  In  Germany  it  was,  especially  in  the  first 
stages  of  the  conflict,  exclusively  the  doctrine  of  the  Sup- 
per that  appeared  as  the  point  of  division ;  predestination 
has  there  always  been  evaded  as  a  subject  of  contro- 
versy. It  is  true  that  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany 
to-day  has  forms  of  piety,  which  show  the  relation  with 
the  Reformed  Churches  in  other  countries,  but  at  the 
time  here  under  consideration  Calvinism  was  yet  in  its 
formative  period.  Its  principles  had  not  yet  worked 
themselves  out.  The  scientific  process  of  generalization 
and  classification,  on  the  part  of  observing  historians,  had 
not  even  begun.  More  time  must  elapse  before  such 
could  take  place.  But  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper 
many  minds  had  been  awakened  through  Luther's  contro- 
versies with  Zwingli,  Carlstadt  and  Schwenkfeld,  and  by 
the  movements  that  led  to  the  Wittenberg  Concord;  and 
this  doctrine,  therefore,  readily  offered  itself  as  a  pulse 
of  the  doctrinal  life  of  the  two  Churches.     (Cf.  p.  13f.) 


V.      THE  FINAL  SEPARATION  BETWEEN  LUTHERANISM  AND 

CALVINISM  IN  THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD  AND  IN 

THE  NEUSTADT  ADMONITION. 

We  have  seen  that  at  first  Calvin  was  looked  upon  by 
many  as  an  "Upper-German  Lutheran"  and  his  view  on 
the  Supper  had  a  silent  propaganda  in  Germany.  We 
have  also  seen  that  finally  there  arose  a  controversy  in 
which  it  was  made  clear  that  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the 
Supper  was  fundamentally  different  from  that  of  Luther 
— a  controversy  that  was  intensified  through  the  crypto- 
Calvinistic  agitations  which  led  to  the  loss  of  the  Palati- 
nate to  Lutheranism,  with  Electoral  Saxony  in  danger  of 
being  lost  also.  Now  we  shall  see  how  the  consciousness 
of  that  fundamental  difference  which  resulted  from  those 
controversies  was  expressed  in  a  Lutheran  Confession, 


31 

the  Formula  of  Concord,  to  which  the  Reformed  replied 
in  a  very  significant  writing,  the  Neostadiensium  Admo- 
nito. 

We  cannot  here  discuss  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  a 
whole.  For  such  a  study  we  must  refer  to  Fritschel's 
book  which  has  been  quoted  before.**  Here  we  have  to 
do  with  the  Formula  only  in  so  far  as  it  gave  decisions  on 
the  problems  that  were  under  discussion  in  the  contro- 
versies between  Lutherans  and  Reformed. 

The  Formula  of  Concord,  which  was  first  published  in 
1577,  in  the  form  of  little  monographs,  states  the  posi- 
tion of  Lutheranism  in  twelve  articles ;  of  these.  Articles 
VII  ,on  the  Eucharist,  VIII,  on  the  Person  of  Christ,  IX, 
on  the  Descent  to  Hell,  and  XI,  on  Predestination,  cover 
the  controversies.  But  since  we  have  in  these  investiga- 
tions limited  ourselves  to  the  "Union  Movements  Between 
Lutherans  and  Reformed"  in  Germany  (which  in  their 
confessional  statements,  particularly  in  the  Brandenburg 
Confessions,  have  excluded  Calvin's  doctrine  of  Predesti- 
nation and  even  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  have  evaded 
a  discussion  of  it)  we  can  confine  ourselves  to  a  discussion 
of  the  essential  features  of  Articles  VII,  VIII,  and  IX. 
It  is  true  that  the  spirit  of  legalism,  an  outstanding  char- 
acteristic of  the  Reformed  Church,  finds  a  remarkable 
corrective  in  the  articles  of  the  Formula  which  deal  with 
the  relation  of  Law  and  Gospel  (V  and  VI) .  Neverthe- 
less these  articles  were  historically  not  occasioned  by  po- 
sitions of  the  Swiss  Reformers.  Moreover,  legalism  as  a 
product  of  Calvin's  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  is 
more  evident  among  the  Reformed  Churches  outside  of 
the  German  Reformed — we  mention  especially  the  Puri- 
tans. It  will,  therefore,  be  better  to  consider  this  feature 
in  the  discussions  of  the  last  chapter  of  these  essays  where 
we  shall  deal  with  the  Reformed  Churches  in  general  in 
their  doctrinal  and  practical  distinction  from  Lutheran- 
ism. 


44  Geo.  J.  Fritschel,  The  Formula  of  Concord,  1916,  Philadel- 
phia, Pa.  An  extract  of  this  book  is  contained  in  J.  L.  Neve,  In- 
troduction to  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  384-428. 


32 

In  Art.  VII  the  Formula  of  Concord  uses  painstaking 
care  to  guard  the  interpretation  of  Art.  X  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  on  the  Lord's  Supper  by  describing  the 
kind  of  real  presence  that  was  meant  by  Luther  in  his 
controversy  with  the  Sacramentarians,  and  in  his  agree- 
ment with  the  Upper  Germans  in  the  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord. The  Catechism  and  especially  the  Smalcald  Ar- 
ticles are  referred  to.  The  bodily  presence  is  taught  upon 
the  basis  of  the  words  of  institution.*^  Thus  it  is  taught 
that,  on  account  of  the  sacramental  union  between  the 
earthly  and  the  heavenly  elements,  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood  are  truly  and  essentially  present  and  received  with 
the  bread  and  wine.  It  is,  however,  not  a  "physical  or 
earthly"  presence.**'  From  such  a  view  of  the  real  pres- 
ence it  follows  that  communicants  receive  the  Body  of 
Christ  "with  the  mouth"  (ore)  which,  however,  does  not 
mean  a  capernaitic  eating  (manducation),  for  it  takes 
place  in  a  supernatural,  incomprehensible,  heavenly  way. 
With  this  sacramental  mode  of  receiving  Christ's  essen- 
tial Body  by  worthy  and  unworthy  communicants,  there 
goes  also  a  spiritual  receiving  by  faith  only,  which  can 
also  take  place  outside  of  the  use  of  the  Sacrament.*^  The 
pious,  indeed,  receive  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  as  an 
infallible  pledge  and  assurance  that  their  sins  are  surely 
forgiven,  and  that  Christ  dwells  in  them  and  wishes  to  be 
efficacious  in  them.*^  The  discussions  in  this  article  are 
so  thorough  and  exhaustive  that  all  loopholes  for  the 
vagueness  of  Melanchthon,  for  the  suggestions  of  Bucer, 
and  for  the  definitions  of  Calvin  are  stopped  up.  There 
can  be  no  mistake  henceforth  as  to  what  Lutheranism  is 
in  distinction  from  Calvinism.  To  have  made  this  clear 
in  every  respect  is  the  significance  of  this  article  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord.*^ 

45  §§46-59.  Our  references  are  to  H.  E.  Jacobs',  Peoples'  Ed.  of 
the  Book  of  Concord. 

46  §§5,6;  cf.  17. 

47  §§15,  16;  41,  42;  63-66. 

48  §§63,  44. 

49  Cf.  Seeberg,  History  of  Doctrines,  II,  386flF.  Tschackert, 
Entstehung,  549flF.    Fritschel,  Book  of  Concord  194-202. 


33 


But  the  Formula  carried  its  decisions  back  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  person  of  Christ  where  the  root  of  the  dif- 
ference had  already  appeared  in  the  controversy  be- 
tween Luther  and  Zwingli.  The  latter  had  taken  the  po- 
sition that  according  to  His  Body  Christ  cannot  be  pres- 
ent in  the  Supper,  because  omnipresence  belongs  to  the 
divine  nature  only.  Calvin  agreed  with  Zwingli.  Here 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  its  system  of  the  personal 
union  and  the  communicatio  idiomatum,  teaches  the  ge- 
nus majestaticum  according  to  which  there  are  communi- 
cated to  Christ's  human  nature  certain  attributes  of  the 
divine  nature  so  that  the  whole  Christ,  undivided  in  one 
person,  can  be  and  is  present  where  in  His  Word  He 
promises  to  be  present.^"  This  doctrine  is  proved  by  quo- 
tations from  the  Scriptures.^^  As  to  the  question  whether 
such  a  communication  is  possible  the  Formula  answers 
characteristically:  "No  one  can  know  better  or  more 
thoroughly  than  the  Lord  Christ  Himself."  (§53).  We 
cannot  here  review  all  the  statements  and  arguments  of 
the  Formula  on  the  person  of  Christ  and,  therefore,  have 
contented  ourselves  with  what  is  especially  germane  to 
our  general  discussion." 

50  §§i6,  17;  cf.  corresponding  parts  in  the  "Solid  Declaration." 
This  feature  of  Luther's  Christology  was  not  a  mere  invention  for 
the  purpose  of  simply  furnishing  a  support  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  Real  Presence,  as  SchafF  and  many  others  have  viewed  it  (see 
Creeds  of  Christendom  I,  288).  What  Luther  wished  to  establish 
with  his  strong  emphasis  upon  the  personal  union  was  nothing 
less  than  the  full  value  of  the  atonement  wrought  by  Christ,  the 
God-man.  If  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  so  separated  from  His  di- 
vinity that  there  is  no  real  communion,  no  communication  of  the 
divine  attributes  to  the  humanity,  then  there  is  no  real  validity  in 
the  suffering  of  Christ.  Luther  says :  "If  the  devil  should  per- 
suade me  that  in  Christ  a  mere  man  was  crucified  and  died  for  mc, 
then  I  would  be  lost,  but  if  I  can  attach  to  it  the  importance  that 
Christ  died  for  me  as  real  God  and  man  then  such  doctrine  will 
outweigh  and  destroy  sin,  death,  hell  and  all  misery."  (Compare 
the  exhaustive  treatment  of  this  subject  in  Plitt,  Einleitung  in  die 
Augustana  II,  79-102,  in  particular  p.  95. 

51  §§54-59- 

52  Cf.  Seeberg  and  Tschackert  ut  supra.  Fritschel,  pp.  203-213 
Tholuck,  Christliches  Leben  im  17.    Jahrhundert,  p.  2iff. 


34 

In  the  brief  Article  IX,  on  the  Descent  to  Hell,  we  can 
also  see  the  Lutheran  emphasis  upon  the  personal  union 
of  God  and  man  in  Christ.  "The  entire  person,  God  and 
man,  after  the  burial  descended  into  hell,  conquered  the 
devil,  destroyed  the  power  of  hell  and  took  from  the  devil 
all  his  might." 

Among  the  replies  to  the  Formula  by  the  Reformed  the 
Newstad  Admonition  (Neostadiensium  Admonitio)  was 
especially  significant,  for  two  reasons:  (1)  This  book, 
covering  455  quarto  pages,  was  written  with  great  thor- 
oughness by  Zach.  Ursinus,  one  of  the  authors  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism;  and  (2)  it  was  written  at  the  in- 
struction of  Count  Casimir,  of  Neustadt  in  the  Palatinate 
and  published  in  the  name  of  the  Newstad  theologians.^^ 
These  theologians  at  first  labored  for  a  Melanchthonian 
middle  type  of  Protestantism,  but  in  fact  found  them- 
selves entirely  on  the  side  of  Calvin,  agreeing  with  him 
even  in  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  although  not  press- 
ing this  point  to  the  extent  that  was  done  in  other  coun- 
tries. 

An  impression  of  the  Newstad  Admonition  may  be  had 
by  a  mere  quotation  of  the  captions  to  the  twelve  chap- 
ters: (1)  The  person  of  Christ,  a  review  of  the  true 
doctrine;  (2)  The  Lord's  Supper,  a  review  of  the  true 
doctrine;  (3)  Refutation  of  the  false  accusation  of  our 
churches  with  regard  to  false  dogmas;  (4)  The  author- 
ity of  the  Augsburg  Confession;  (5)  The  true  meaning 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession ;  (6)  Regarding  the  authority 
of  Dr.  Luther;  (7)  Concerning  the  unjust  condemnation 
of  our  doctrine  in  the  Book  of  Concord ;  (8)  Proof  of  false 
assertions  in  the  Book  of  Concord;  (9)  Proof  of  contra- 
dictions in  the  Book  of  Concord;  (10)  The  procedure  of 

53  After  the  death  of  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the  Palatinate 
(1576),  who  had  introduced  Calvinism,  the  city  of  Heidelberg  with 
the  University  returned  for  a  time  to  Lutheranism  under  the  reign 
of  his  son,  Elector  Ludwig  (1576-83).  His  brother,  John  Casimir, 
gathered  about  him  at  Newstad  the  Reformed  theologians  who 
were  expelled  from  Heidelberg.  Chief  of  them  was  Ursinus; 
others  were  Junius,  Tossanus,  Zanchius.  Cf.  Moeller-Kawerau 
III,  303f. 


35 

the  theologians  in  bringing  about  concord,  and  the  part 
of  a  Christian  magistrate  in  church  controversies;  (11) 
The  inconvenience  in  the  carrying  out  of  this  concord; 
(12)  An  epilogue  on  the  true  method  for  establishing 
Christian  concord  in  the  churches. 

In  chapter  two  the  Real  Presence  in  the  sense  of  Lu- 
ther is  rejected.  With  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ  in 
chapter  one  it  is  declared  that  the  essential  attributes  of 
the  divine  nature  cannot  be  communicated  everywhere  to 
the  human  nature;  the  accidental  attributes  only,  which 
do  not  constitute  Christ's  divine  nature,  are  given  to  his 
human  nature  in  the  state  of  glory.  In  chapters  eight 
and  nine  the  Lutheran  position  is  charged  with  incon- 
sistency and  with  being  in  conflict  with  the  Scriptures. 
Chapters  four  and  five  are  of  special  interest,  because 
they  contribute  to  a  correct  apprehension  of  the  German 
Reformed.  The  author  declares  that  he  does  not  reject 
the  Augsburg  Confession  (Va7'iata),  but  he  protests 
against  a  binding  subscription,  which  can  be  claimed  only 
by  the  Bible.  Confessions  can  be  subscribed  to  only  so  far 
(qtiatenus)  as  they  agree  with  the  Scriptures.^*  While 
the  Admonition  has  no  deliverance  on  predestination  as 
such,  yet  we  know  that  Ursinus  stood  with  Calvin  on  this 
subject,  as  is  evident  in  chapter  nine.  In  the  manner  of 
the  strict  predestinarians  of  succeeding  ages  Luther's 
writing  against  Erasmus  on  free-will  is  quoted  against 
Art.  XI  of  the  Formula  on  predestination.^^ 

This  Newstad  Admonition  was  first  published  in  Latin 
and  then  translated  into  German.  At  the  instruction  of 
the  three  Lutheran  electors  of  Brandenburg,  Saxony  and 
the  Palatinate  the  theologians  Chemnitz,  Selnecker  and 

54  Here  the  position  of  the  Lutherans  with  their  demand  of  a 
quia  subscription  is  usually  misunderstood.  For  a  review  of  this 
question,  see  Neve,  Introduction  to  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  22-30; 
cf.  also  article  "Orthodoxie"  in  R.  E.  XIV,  p.  496. 

55  Cf.  Warfield,  The  Plan  of  Salvation,  p.  44,  note  13.  See  our 
explanation  in  the  last  of  these  discourses. 


36 

Kirchner  replied  in  the  so-called  "Erfurt  Book"  of  sev- 
eral volumes  (1583)/® 

Let  us  repeat :  In  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  in  the 
Newstad  Admonition  the  consciousness  of  the  funda- 
mental difference  between  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism 
was  expressed  as  a  finality.  The  breach  became  perma- 
nent. Henceforth  the  two  tendencies  of  Protestantism, 
the  realistic  and  the  spiritualistic,  stand  opposed  to  each 
other  as  Church  against  Church. 

From  now  on  we  have  also  the  names  "Lutherans"  and 
"Reformed"  as  adopted  by  the  churches  themselves  and 
meaning  what  they  mean  to-day.  The  term  "Lutheran" 
had  been  used  by  the  Romanists  since  1520  as  a  designa- 
tion of  all  adherents  of  the  Reformation.  After  the  in- 
troduction of  Calvinism  into  the  Palatinate  the  distinc- 
tion is  made  between  "Lutherans"  and  "Calvinists."  But 
after  1585  the  followers  of  Luther  began  to  call  them- 
selves "Lutherans.""  The  followers  of  Calvin  refused 
to  be  called  Calvinists;  they  called  themselves  "Re- 
formed," intending  thereby  to  indicate  that  they  aimed  at 
a  reformation  also  of  Lutheranism  in  Germany  which  had 
kept  too  much  of  the  Roman  leaven.^* 


VI.      FURTHER  LOSS  OF  LUTHERAN  TERRITORY. 


Before  we  can  devote  ourselves  to  a  study  of  the  union 
movements  we  will  have  to  make  clear  to  what  extent  Cal- 
vinism succeeded  in  gaining  ground  in  Lutheran  Ger- 
many. 

Immediately  after  the  death  of  Melanchthon  an  in- 
creasing influence  of  Calvin  was  felt  in  Germany  particu- 

56  See  the  articles  on  "Neostadiensium  Admonitio"  in  Meusel, 
Kirchliches  Handlexikon  IV,  756  and  in  R.  E.  XIII,  jogi.  Cf.  arti- 
cle on  "Ursinus"  in  Meusel  VII,  26. 

57  Cf.  Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte,  p.  928;  cf.  Heppe,  Ursprung 
und  Geschichte  der  Bezeichnung  reformierter  und  lutherischer 
Konfession." 

58  Cf.  Mocller-Kawerau  III,  p.  300.    Richards,  p.  44- 


37 

larly  where  there  had  been  sympathy  with  Melanchthon's 
views.  Calvin's  Institutiones  come  into  successful  com- 
petition with  Melanchthon's  Lod.  In  quite  a  number  of 
dominions  the  doors  were  opened  to  Calvinism.  We 
have  already  heard  of  the  Palatinate  and  Bremen,  but 
further  inroads  were  made. 

(a).  Nassau.  Melanchthonians  from  Wittenberg  and 
Reformed  theologians  from  the  Palatinate  were  employed 
by  Count  John  VI  for  the  introduction  of  Calvinism  into 
Nassau-Dillenburg.  In  1578,  at  the  Dillenburg  Synod, 
the  Variata  was  accepted  as  an  authentic  interpretation 
of  the  Invariata,  and  the  church  services  were  arranged 
according  to  Reformed  ideals.  Then  (1581),  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism  was  adopted.  At  Herford  a  Reformed 
university  was  established.  A  number  of  small  domin- 
ions in  the  neighborhood  (Sayn,  Wittgenstein,  Solms- 
Braunfels,  Isenburg,  Wied)  joined  in  the  movement 
which  reached  its  conclusion  in  the  Herborn  General 
Synod  of  1586.=" 

(b).  Anhalt.  John  George  I,  was  among  those  who 
refused  to  sign  the  Formula  of  Concord.  A  declaration 
on  the  Lord's  Supper  was  made  that  kept  itself  within 
Melanchthonian  forms  of  expression.  The  first  step  of 
the  prince  in  the  Calvinization  of  the  land  was  taken  by 
removing  the  practice  of  exorcism  in  Baptism.  John 
Arndt,  who  felt  that  he  could  not  yield  to  the  decree,  had 
to  leave  the  country.  After  the  prince  had  married  a 
daughter  of  the  Reformed  John  Casimir  (of  the  Palati- 
nate) he  proceeded  to  put  the  Reformed  Church  service  in 
place  of  the  Lutheran,  and  Luther's  Catechism  was  re- 
moved. Ministers  and  congregations  resisted.  It  was 
declared  that  the  intention  was  only  to  remove  some  rem- 
nants of  Roman  superstition.  It  was  to  be  a  "reforma- 
tion." It  was  here  where  the  term  "Reformed"  as  a 
name  for  the  adherents  of  Calvin  in  Germany  came  first 
into  use.  In  connection  with  the  adoption  of  the  Confes- 
sio  AnJialtina,  it  was  oflftcially  declared  that  the  country 

59    Moeller-Kawerau  III,  305!. 


38 

had  not  ceased  to  stand  upon  the  Augsburg  Confession 
( Variata) .  But  in  reality  it  was  a  mild  Calvinism.  Lu- 
theranism  was  restored  only  in  Anhalt-Zerbst  (since 
1644)  under  Prince  John  who  had  been  trained  by  his 
mother  in  the  Lutheran  faith. •'° 

(c).  Hesse-Cassel.  Landgrave  Philip,  of  Hesse,  had 
died  in  1567.  The  little  country  was  divided  in  the  old 
German  way  between  his  four  sons."  Here  we  are  in- 
terested only  in  Hesse-Cassel  (Lower  Hesse)  under  Wil- 
liam IV.  He  was  decidedly  unionistic  in  his  church 
policy,  like  his  father  had  been.  So  he  refused  to  accept 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  kept  the  Corpus  Doctrinae 
Philippicum  and  paved  the  way  for  the  introduction  of 
Calvinism.  This  was  completely  carried  out  under  his 
son  Moritz  (since  1592),  and  political  compHcations  only 
kept  him  from  carrying  out  his  plan  also  with  regard  to 
other  parts  of  Hesse.  Moritz  was  untiring  in  his  propa- 
ganda for  Calvinism  in  other  countries  (in  Brandenburg, 
Schleswig-Holstein,  Lippe)  .^^ 

(d).  Lippe.  Into  this  little  thoroughly  Lutheran  do- 
minion Count  Simon  VI  introduced  Calvinism  (1602). 
The  chief  promoter  was  the  General  Superintendent  H. 
Dreckmeyer.  The  change  was  made  by  force  of  arms 
against  much  resistance  of  clergy  and  people.*^  One  city 
(Lemgo)  withstood  for  eleven  years  and  saved  its  Lu- 
theranism. 

(e).  The  Conversion  of  Elector  Sigismund  of  Bran- 
denburg to  Calvinism  was  an  occurrence  of  the  greatest 
consequence  for  German  Lutheranism  in  coming  cen- 
turies. The  grandfather  of  John  Sigismund,  Elector 
John  George,  was  a  strict  Lutheran.  He  subscribed  the 
Formula  of  Concord  and  even  made  his  grandson  sign  a 
pledge  that  he  would  remain  faithful  to  the  Lutheran 
Church  (1593).     But  already  the  father  of  John  Sigis- 

60  Kurtz,  English,  §144,  3;  German  ed.  §152,  3.    Moeller-Kawe- 
rau  III,  p.  307. 

61  How  that  was  done,  see  Kurtz,  Engl.,  §154,  i. 

62  Moeller-Kawerau  III,  3o8ff.    Kurtz,  English,  §154,  i ;  German 
§152,  5.    Hering,  Unionsversuche  I,  258ff. 

63  Kurtz,  Engl.,  §154,  2. 


39 

mund,  Joachim  Frederick  (1598-1608),  had  begun  to  de- 
part from  Lutheranism.  It  came  in  connection  with  the 
special  policy  of  the  Hohenzollern  of  striving  after  more 
territory.  His  eyes  were  also  upon  the  country  along  the 
Rhine  (Kleve)  which  was  Reformed.  The  relation  to 
electoral  Saxony  changed,  and  there  was  an  approach  to 
the  Palatinate  (1587).  His  sons  were  sent  to  the  Stras- 
burg  university.  Marriage  relations  with  the  Palatinate 
followed.  Sigismund  studied  Hospinian's  Concordia  Dis- 
cors.^*  In  addition  to  this  he  came  under  the  influence  of 
Moritz  of  Hesse''^  as  also  under  the  influence  of  theologi- 
ans who  had  gone  on  from  Melanchthonianism  to  Calvin- 
ism (such  as  Finck).  In  1613  John  Sigismund  publicly 
changed  his  confession  by  receiving,  together  with  fifty- 
four  others,  in  the  Dom  at  Berlin  the  Lord's  Supper  after 
the  Reformed  manner.  (His  wife  Anna  had  refused  to 
join).  This  step  of  the  elector  was  followed  by  much 
excitement  on  the  part  of  the  people,  because  according 
to  the  existing  law  {cuius  regio,  eju^  religio)  a  prince 
had  the  authority  to  make  his  subjects  follow  him  or  force 
them  to  emigrate.  He  did  not  make  use  of  this  power. 
He  only  forbade  polemics  in  the  pulpit.  An  attempt  was 
made  to  replace  the  Augsburg  Confession  Invariata  by 
the  Variata,  but  in  face  of  threatening  opposition  the 
plan  had  to  be  abandoned.  In  1614  Sigismund  published 
his  Confession  (Confessio  Sigismundi)  as  an  invitation 
for  all  who  would  join  him.  The  Confession  was  in- 
tended as  an  improvement  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  as  a  reformation  of  Lutheranism  from  remnants  of 
Romanism.  The  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's 
Body  was  rejected,  also  the  practice  of  exorcism  in  Bap- 
tism and  the  use  of  wafers  instead  of  the  breaking  of  the 
bread  in  the  communion.  The  Reformed  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments  was  adopted,  but  with  regard  to  predestina- 
tion the  universality  of  grace  was  insisted  on.  At  Frank- 

64  Written  1607  as  a  refutation  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  to 
which  L.  Hutter,  of  Wittenberg,  in  1614,  opposed  his  Concordia 
Concors. 

65  Cf.  above,  sub.  c,  and  Kurtz,  Engl.,  §154,  I. 


40 

fort  (on  the  Oder)  a  university  was  established  which 
was  practically  Reformed  and,  therefore,  avoided  by  the 
clergy  who  patronized  Wittenberg.**® 


VII.      THE  CHARACTER  OP  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH  IN  GER- 
MANY,  PARTICULARLY  ITS  RELATION  TO   MELANCH- 
THONIANISM    AND    "HIGH    CALVINISM." 


The  question  is  whether  there  is  an  essential  difference 
between  Calvinism  as  we  have  it  in  other  countries  and 
the  RefoiTned  Church  in  Germany.  Has  the  German  Re- 
formed Church  been  essentially  modified  by  Melanch- 
thonianism?  This  question  is  of  special  interest  in  a 
critical  review  of  the  union  movements  between  this 
Church  and  the  Lutherans.  We  refer  to  the  following 
literature:  In  Protestantische  Realencyclopaedie  (R. 
E.)  the  articles  "Pr-otestantismus"  by  Kattenbusch  (XVI, 
162f.),  ''Philipvismus"  by  Kawerau  (XV,  322ff.),  and 
"Melanchthon"  by  Kirn  (XII,  562,  12ff.)  ;  also  Stahl,  Die 
Lutherische  Kirche  und  die  Union,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  107-123. 
H.  Schmid,  Geschichte  der  Synkretistischen  Streitigkei- 
ten,  pp.  lOfl") ,  G.  W.  Richards,  The  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
1913,  pp.  87-105. 

Before  we  can  enter  into  a  discussion  of  this  problem  in- 
telligently we  need  to  make  very  clear  what  is  meant  by 
Melanchthonianism.  By  Melanchthonianism  we  under- 
stand what  the  Germans  are  accustomed  to  express  by 
"Philipism,"  namely  the  doctrinal  elements  in  the  teach- 
ings of  Melanchthon,  on  which  he  departed  from  the 
teachings  of  Luther  and  with  which  he  formed  a  school 
against  the  stricter  Lutherans   (Gnesio-Lutherans) ,     In 

66  Moeller-Kawerau  III,  3ioff.  Kurtz,  English,  §154,  3;  German, 
§152,  7.  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  554-63.  Wangemann,  Joh.  Sigismund  und 
Paul  Gerhardt,  pp.  i-ioo.  Neve,  article  "Paul  Gerhardt  in  the 
Church  Troubles  of  His  Time"  in  Lutheran  Quarterly  1907,  pp. 
365ff. 


41 


this  discussion  we  must  confine  ourselves  to  matters  in 
which  he  approached  Bucer  and  Calvin :  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per and  the  Person  of  Christ.  We  have  to  keep  in  mind 
that  Melanchthon  had  no  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  of  his 
own.  It  was  in  his  nature  to  evade  the  controversy  rather 
than  to  solve  the  problem.  He  preferred  to  leave  conflict- 
ing principles  untouched.  There  is  something  eclectic  about 
him.''"  It  cannot  be  said  that  he  ever  adopted  Calvin's 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  especially  its  characteris- 
tic formulas  of  the  exaltation  of  the  believing  soul  into 
heaven  and  of  the  communication  of  Christ's  humanity 
to  the  believer  through  the  Spirit."^  Neither  did  he  re- 
ject it.  But  his  approach  to  Calvin  is  in  the  conception 
of  a  personal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper.  This  he 
had  taken  over  from  Bucer.  He  liked  this  conception  be- 
cause he  thought  that  he  could  use  it  as  a  formula  for 
union.  We  must  agree  when  Stahl  says:  Melanchthon's 
conception  of  a  general  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper 
is  after  all  Calvin's  doctrine  not  openly  expressed.  There 
is  no  middle  doctrine  between  Luther  and  Calvin.  As 
soon  as  the  Lutheran  view  is  abandoned,  the  Reformed 
view  is  the  only  thing  that  is  left.  Calvin,  Bucer,  Me- 
lanchthon mark  only  different  theological  types  of  the 
Reformed  doctrine.**^  A  characteristic  of  the  Bucero- 
Melanchthonian  expressions  is  their  elasticity.  As  to  the 
real  doctrine  which  Melanchthon  held  for  himself  his- 
torians are  not  agreed.  Kim^°  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  pupils  of  Melanchthon  have  interpreted  their 
teacher  differently  on  this  subject  (Peucer  different  from 
Hemmig  and  Major).  But  the  fact  that  Melanchthon 
supported  Hardenberg  in  Bremen''^  and  that  through  his 
written  estimate  {Gutachten)  he  was  instrumental  in  con- 
firming Elector  Frederick  III  in  views"  that  took  the 

67  Stahl,  p.  io8f. 

68  Institutiones  IV,  17,  9,  10,  18. 

69  Die  Luth.  Kirche  u.  d.  Union,  p.  iiif. 

70  R.  E.  XII,  526,  20. 

71  R.  E.  VII,  412.     Corp.  Ref.  IX,  iqAF. 

72  Corp.  Ref.  IX,  96off. 


42 

Palatinate  over  to  Calvinism  shows  that  between  the  doc- 
trines of  Luther  and  Calvin  he  favored  Calvinism.  But 
he  himself  did  not  make  the  choice,  because  he  saw  the 
salvation  of  German  Protestantism  in  a  tenacious  adher- 
ence to  his  unionistic  formulas.  He  refused  to  go  beyond 
the  expression  of  Paul,  I  Cor.  10:16,  that  the  bread  is 
"the  communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ."  In  Art.  X  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  Variata  form,  he  uses  the 
preposition  cum.  This  can  have  the  signification  "through 
the  means  of" ;  when  so  interpreted  it  is  Lutheran.  But 
it  may  also  mean  simultaneoiisly  or  in  connection  with; 
when  so  understood  it  is  Calvinistic.  The  oral  reception 
of  the  Body  of  Christ  and  its  reception  also  by  the  un- 
worthy offer  the  test  as  to  which  signification  is  accepted. 
Melanchthon  rejected  the  oral  receiving  of  Christ's 
Body."  The  fundamental  trouble  with  Melanchthon  was 
his  failure  to  appreciate  Luther's  great  thought  of  the 
mystery  in  the  organic  union  between  the  divine  and  the 
human  as  well  as  the  communication  of  the  divine  through 
the  created. 

Melanchthonianism  as  an  organized  party^*  suffered  a 
severe  defeat  in  the  drama  that  took  place  in  Saxony,  as 
we  have  described  above.  This  defeat  at  that  time  was 
not  merely  the  result  of  the  severe  polemics  of  the  strict 
Lutherans,  but  it  had  its  source  in  the  lack  of  character 
and  positiveness  of  the  Melanchthonian  position.'^'*  Me- 
lanchthon's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  lacked  in  Bib- 
lical foundation  and  in  dogmatic  completeness.  It  could 
appeal  to  those  only  with  an  indifferent  attitude  of  mind. 
And  the  Christology  of  the  Melanchthonians  falls  short 
in  that  it  refuses  to  draw  logical  consequences  from  ad- 
mitted premises.  Melanchthonianism,  in  the  points  un- 
der consideration,  was  too  neutral;  it  lacked  in  positive- 
ness. Kawerau  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  after  the 
introduction  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  wherever  Me- 


73  Corp.  Ref.  IX,  1046. 

74  Cf.  R.  E.  XV,  323,  15. 

75  Kawerau  remarks  that  Philippism  remained  "etwas  Halbes." 
R.  E.  XV,  329,  51. 


43 

lanchthonianism  still  persisted  there  came  forth  no  schol- 
arship that  could  be  compared  with  the  literary  produc- 
tions of  Concordia  LutheranismJ* 

But  what  was  the  influence  of  Melanchthonianism  upon 
further  developments  in  Germany?  While  it  is  true  that 
for  the  time  being  Melanchthonianism  was  defeated 
through  the  very  general  adoption  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord  and  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Concord — de- 
feated to  such  an  extent  that  for  a  century  the  name  of 
the  praeceptor  Germaniae  could  hardly  be  mentioned 
without  arousing  indignation,"  yet  it  was  by  no  means 
dead.  Germany,  consisting  of  many  different  independ- 
ent dominions  and  principalities,  secured  to  Melanchthon- 
ianism safe  places  of  refuge.^*  Where  subscription  to  the 
Formula  of  Concord  was  refused  Melanchthonianism  as 
a  rule  found  a  field  for  its  influence. 

An  important  instrument  through  which  Melanchthon- 
ianism kept  exercising  an  influence  with  practical  results 
was  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Variata  form.  It 
served  as  an  instrument  for  the  introduction  of  a  milder 
or  even  a  complete  Calvinism  in  many  territories.  It 
was  before  the  Thirty  Years'  War  when,  according  to  the 
Augsburg  Religious  Peace  Treaty  of  1555,  the  adherents 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  alone  were  entitled  to  tolera- 
tion. By  accepting  the  Variata  and  interpreting  Art.  X 
on  the  Lord's  Supper  in  a  Bucerian  or  fully  Calvinistic 
sense  Calvinism  was  introduced.  Thus  as  mentioned 
above,  Frederick  III  of  the  Palatinate,  when  the  Lutheran 
princes  threatened  to  proceed  against  him  for  having 
made  his  country  Calvinistic,  answered  that  he  was  stand- 
ing upon  the  Augustana  Variata.  But  his  real  creed  was 
contained  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.     At  Nassau,  Bre- 

76  R.  E.  XV,  329,  55. 

77  Dr.  Polykarp  Leyser  at  a  disputation  in  Wittenberg  tore  the 
picture  of  Melanchthon  from  the  wall  and  threw  it  to  the  ground. 

78  Kattenbusch,  in  R.  E.  XVI,  163,  8. 


44 

men,  Anhalt  and  in  Brandenburg  the  Variata  was  used 
for  the  same  purpose."^ 

It  is  an  interesting  question  and  for  the  consideration 
of  our  general  subject  a  very  practical  one  whether  Me- 
lanchthonianism  has  actually  modified  Calvinism  in  Ger- 
many or  not.  Is  the  Calvinism  of  Germany,  or  the  "Re- 
formed" Church  of  Germany,  different  from  the  same 
form  of  Protestantism ,  or  from  the  "high  Calvinism"  in 
other  countries?  This  is  a  question  that  cannot  be  an- 
swered with  a  simple  yes  or  no.  It  must  be  admitted  that 
in  the  parts  of  Germany  that  embraced  Calvinism  there 
has  been  an  almost  general  tendency  to  exclude  or  to 
evade  Calvin's  doctrine  of  Predestination.®'^  When  it 
came  to  the  Lord's  Supper  Calvin's  doctrine  prevailed 
everywhere.  But  after  all  the  question  is  whether  or  not 
even  this  view  has  been  modified  by  Melanchthonian 
forms  of  expression.  This  has  certainly  been  the  case  in 
Anhalt  (see  above  sub.  6.  b)  if  we  are  to  be  guided  by  the 
Repetitio  Anhaltina  of  1581.^'  Neither  can  it  be  denied 
that  the  Confession  of  Sigismund  of  1614  (see  sub.  6,  e) 
bears  a  somewhat  Melanchthonian  character.  To  quote 
Schaff:  "In  regard  to  the  controverted  articles,  Sigis- 
mund rejects  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  Body  and  exorcism  in  Baptism  as  a  superstitious 
ceremony,  and  the  use  of  the  wafer  instead  of  the  break- 
ing of  bread  in  the  communion.  He  adopts  the  Reform- 
ed doctrine  of  the  Sacraments,  and  of  the  eternal  and  un- 
conditioned election  of  grace,  yet  with  the  declaration  that 
God  sincerely  wished  the  salvation  of  all  men  and  was  not 
the  author  of  sin  and  damnation."^^  The  terms  employed 
on  the  Lord's  Supper  are  indeed  Bucero-Melanchthonian. 

79  Moeller-Kawerau  III,  305f.  Kurtz,  English  ed.  §§I44.  2;  154,  i 
(Moeller-Kawerau  III,  307!.,  3o8f.)  §154,  3.  (Moeller-Kawerau  III, 
3i2ff.)  Cf.  Neve,  Altered  and  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession, 
Luth.  Lit.  Bd.,  Burlington,  Iowa)  p.  36f. 

80  Cf.  Richards,  Heidelberg  Catechism,  p.  loiflF. 

81  It  is  not  a  strictly  Reformed  Confession,  but  dating  from  the 
Melanchthonian  transition  period  it  represents  more  "a  milder 
type  of  Lutheranism  in  opposition  to  the  Flacian  party."  (Schaff, 
Creeds  I,  564). 

82  Creeds  I,  556. 


45 

We  read  of  a  "sacramental  connection"  of  the  earthly  and 
heavenly  elements,  of  an  "undivided  distribution"  of 
bread  and  the  Body  of  Christ.  But  the  emphasis  is  upon 
the  cum  in  the  sense  of  simultaneous,  as  can  be  seen  from 
the  statement  that  the  bread  is  received  with  the  mouth, 
but  the  Body  of  Christ  through  faith.  It  is  the  Calvin- 
istic  "side  by  side"  expressions  as  against  the  Lutheran 
conception  of  an  organic  union.^^  However,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  there  appears  in  these  Confessions,  as  well 
as  the  Confessions  of  Brandenburg,  that  grew  out  of  the 
colloquies  at  Leipzig  (1631)  and  at  Thorn  (1645),  some- 
thing of  the  Melanchthonian  indefiniteness  and  elasticity 
of  expression.  When  we  make  this  admission  it  should, 
however,  be  remembered  that  at  Bremen,  Lippe  and  on 
the  Rhine  the  Reformed  Church  was  of  a  strictly  Calvin- 
istic  type. 

But  before  the  conclusion  of  our  investigation,  we  will 
have  to  consider  for  a  moment  the  chief  Confession  of 
the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany,  which  is  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism.  Very  few  of  the  Reformed  in  the  age 
of  the  union  movements  knew  or  cared  to  know  the  Bran- 
denburg Confessions,  but  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was 
learned  by  every  child.  What  is  the  confessional  char- 
acter of  this  catechism?  Dr.  G.  W.  Richards,  professor 
in  the  Reformed  Seminary  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  in  his  book 
on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  mentions  three  points  in 
which  the  teaching  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  differs 
from  Lutheranism :  with  regard  to  the  Sacraments,  to  the 
person  of  Christ,  and  to  the  Church.  In  Baptism  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  is  in  no  wise  received  through  the  water 
in  connection  with  the  Word,  for  the  application  of  water 
is  only  a  symbol  through  which  a  certain  assurance  of  for- 
giveness is  granted.  See  the  answer  to  question  73 :  "I 
am  washed  with  the  Blood  and  Spirit  from  the  pollution 
of  my  soul,  that  is  from  all  my  sins,  as  certainly  as  I  am 
washed  outwardly  with  water,  whereby  the  filthiness  of 

83    Stahl,  ii6flF. 


46 


the  Body  is  taken  away."  Dr.  Richard  interprets :  "The 
washing  with  the  Blood  and  Spirit  is  not  accompHshed 
through  the  water ;  it  is  merely  symbolized  by  the  water." 
Regarding  the  Supper  it  is  answered  to  question  75  "that 
with  His  crucified  Body  and  shed  Blood,  He  Himself  feeds 
and  nourishes  my  soul  to  everlasting  life,  as  certainly  as 
I  receive  from  the  hand  of  the  minister  and  taste  with  my 
mouth,  the  bread  and  the  cup  of  the  Lord."  Again  Dr. 
Richards  interprets:  "This  nourishment,  however,  is 
not  given  in,  with  and  under  the  bread  and  wine.  For 
the  bread  and  cup  of  the  Lord  are  no  more  than  'cei'tain 
tokens  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ — not  vehicles  and 
instruments.'  The  most  that  one  could  claim  is,  that  the 
spiritual  food  is  imparted  by  the  mediation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  at  the  same  time  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  re- 
ceived. Nor  does  any  one,  save  the  believer,  receive  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ;  the  unbeliever  receives  only 
bread  and  wine.  This  fact  is  not  stated  in  so  many 
words,  but  it  is  a  legitimate  inference  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  Catechism."^*  In  questions  46  and  47  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  Body  is 
clearly  excluded.  Under  question  44  we  have  Calvin's 
doctrine  of  Christ's  descent  to  hell.  That  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  in  agreement 
with  Zwingli  and  Calvin  can  be  seen  in  its  language  on 
the  office  of  the  keys  and  on  church  discipline  (cf.  ques- 
tions 83-85).  In  addition  to  this  we  mention  the  Puri- 
tanic strictness  of  the  Catechism  in  its  rejection  of  images 
in  the  Church  (q.  98).  Cautiousness  of  expression  and 
an  obvious  unwillingness  to  commit  itself  are  character- 
istic of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  This  is  to  be  explain- 
ed by  the  fact  that  its  task  was  the  reconciliation  of  an 
entirely  Lutheran  population  to  Calvin's  type  of  Protest- 
antism.   But  the  Catechism  is  truly  Reformed. 

84    Richards,  p.  90. 


47 

And  yet  there  is  a  characteristic  difference  between  the 
Heidelberg  and  Calvin's  own  Catechism."  His  leading 
principle,  the  glorification  of  God  in  the  congregation  of 
the  elect,  appears  constantly.  "The  Catechism  of  Calvin 
seeks  to  teach  men  how  to  glorify  God  and  every  part  is 
controlled  by  that  idea — God's  glory  and  God's  will.  It 
is  theological  and  legalistic  in  spirit."^®  The  first  ques- 
tion of  Calvin's  Catechism  reads :  "What  is  the  chief  end 
of  human  life?"  The  first  question  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  reads :  "What  is  your  sole  comfort  in  life  and 
death?"  Calvin  is  speculative,  the  Heidelberg  is  prac- 
tical. The  writer  agrees  with  Dr.  Richards  when  he  re- 
marks :  "One  may  define  it  as  Calvinism  modified  by  the 
German  genius."*^  This  must  have  been  the  reason  that 
the  Catechism  refrains  from  committing  itself  to  Calvin's 
doctrine  of  predestination. 

Our  conclusion,  then,  is  that  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween "high  Calvinism"  and  the  Calvinism  of  the  German 
Reformed,  The  Calvinism  which  appears  in  connection 
with  the  "union  movements  between  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed," among  the  Germans,  is  a  Calvinism  translated 
into  the  Grerman.  It  is  a  difference,  however,  not  in  es- 
sence, but  only  in  degree.  It  should  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  Swiss  Confessions  have  also  had  their  influence 
upon  the  German  Reformed.  Neither  should  it  be  over- 
looked that  the  influences  from  England  through  much 

85  Calvin  evidently  was  not  pleased  with  the  publication  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism.  He  never  mentions  it.  "Er  schwieg  sich 
aus."  He  had  hoped  that  his  Catechism  would  become  the  only 
Catechism  for  the  Churches  under  his  influence.  But  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  in  which  were  representatives  of  almost  all  the  Reformed 
Churches,  recognized  the  Heidelberg  as  a  book  of  symbolic  value. 
In  Holland  (since  1586)  preachers  and  teachers  were  obligated  to 
its  acceptance;  in  Germany  and  to  the  East,  wherever  Calvinism 
found  a  hold,  it  came  into  use  everywhere;  in  East-Friesland,  on 
the  lower  Rhine,  at  Juelich,  Kleve  and  Berg,  in  Nassau-Siegen, 
Witgenstein,  Solms  and  Wied,  Bremen,  Lippe,  Anhalt,  Hesse- 
Cassel,  Brandenburg,  Prussia  and  Hungary.  The  Reformed 
Churches  in  France,  England,  Scotland  kept  their  own  Cate- 
chisms.   Cf.  the  article  of  M.  Lauterburg  in  R.  E.  X,  p.  172. 

86  Richards,  p.  99. 

87  See  Richards,  ut  supra,  pp.  96,  cf.  103. 


48 

literature  and  through  personal  touch — we  only  need  to 
think  of  the  union  endeavors  of  Duraeus*^ — have  been 
many. 

We  have  come  to  the  end  of  the  second  chapter. 
We  have  studied  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  as  they 
stood  opposed  to  each  other  when  the  need  of  a  union  was 
felt.  We  are  now  ready  for  a  critical  review  of  the  union 
movements  through  the  seventeenth  and  the  eighteenth 
centuries,  which  shall  be  our  task  in  the  next  two  chap- 
ters. 

88    Cf.  Kurtz,  Church  History,  §154,  4. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    VARIOUS    UNION    MOVEMENTS    OF    THE    SEVEN- 
TEENTH  CENTURY. 

Literature:  Some  of  the  literature  used  in  this  chap- 
ter was  given  with  full  title  and  time  of  publication  in 
preceding  chapters.  It  is  enumerated  at  the  beginning 
or  at  the  close  of  the  separate  sections  and  referred  to 
in  the  text  of  the  discussions.  These  works  are  especi- 
ally Kurtz,  Moeller-Kawerau  III,  Stahl,  Wangemann,, 
Hering,  Schaff.  The  following  are  here  added:  Aw- 
gusti,  Corpus  Librorum  Symbolicorum,  etc.  (collection 
of  Reformed  confessions  cf.  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  355),  1827, 
pp.  386ff.,  398ff.  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum  in 
Ecclesiis  Reformatis  (1840),  pp.  553ff.,  669ff.  Boeckel, 
Die  Bekenntnisschriften  der  Reformierten  Kirche  (1847), 
pp.  669ff.  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch  der  Union  (1853), 
pp.  73ff.,  pp.  118ff.  Schmid,  Geschichte  der  synkretis- 
tischen  Streitigkeiten  (1846).  Zoeckler,  Augsburgische 
Konfession.  Neve,  Paul  Gerhardt  in  Lutheran  Quar- 
terly (1907).  Zezschtuitz,  Die  kirchlichen  Normen 
der  Abendmahlsgemeinschaft  (1870).  Rietschel,  Die 
Gewaehrung  der  Abendmahlsgemeinschaft  (1869).  The 
following  articles  of  Hauck's  Protestantische  Realency- 
klopaedie  (R.  E.)  have  been  used:  "Konsensus  von 
Sendomir"  by  Erbkam  (XVIII,  215ff.)  ;  on  Cassel  Col- 
loquy by  Mirbt  (III,  744ff.)  ;  "David  Paraeus"  by  Ney 
(XIV,  686)  ;  "Leipzig  Colloquium"  by  Hauck  (XI, 
363ff.)  ;  "Naumburger  Fuerstentag"  by  Kawerau  (XIII, 
661ff.)  ;  "Sigismund"  by  Kawerau  (XVIII,  331ff.)  ; 
"Synkretismus"  by  Tschackert  (XIX,  243,  cf.  Meusel  and 
Lutheran     Encyclopedia    on     Syncretism)  ;     "Duraeus" 

49 


60 

(John  Dury)  by  Tschackert  (V,  92ff.;  «f.  New  Schaff- 
Herzog  IV,  37ff.) 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  considered  developments 
in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  showed 
how  the  division  between  the  two  churches  of  Protestant- 
ism became  permanent.  We  have  seen  how  the  Church 
of  Calvin,  in  seemingly  Melanchthonian  forms,  yet  de- 
cidedly Calvinistic  on  the  means  of  grace,  gained  ground 
in  Germany  so  that  the  two  churches  stood  opposed  to 
each  other,  weakening  the  cause  of  Protestantism  in  se- 
vere controversy  at  a  time  when  over  against  the  on- 
slaught of  Romanism  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War  confes- 
sional harmony  was  very  much  needed.  A  union  was 
the  crying  need  of  the  age,  and  to  satisfy  this  need  of  a 
union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  one  "Irenicum" 
after  the  other  was  published,  colloquies  were  held, 
churchmen  and  princes  were  active.  These  union  move- 
ments and  endeavors,  interspersed  with  confessional 
conflicts  as  their  unavoidable  counterpart,  characterize 
the  seventeenth  century  or,  more  correctly,  the  closing 
part  of  the  sixteenth  and  the  larger  part  of  the  seven- 
teenth. In  the  present  chapter  we  shall  describe  these 
various  union  movements,  and  in  a  following  chapter  on 
"George  Calixtus  and  His  Opponents"  we  shall  discuss 
the  conflicting  principles  between  the  men  of  union  and 
the  men  of  the  confessions. 

It  may  be  said  in  general  that  the  greater  willingness 
and  readiness  for  a  union  was  always  on  the  part  of  the 
Reformed ;  the  Lutherans  never  took  the  initiative,  and 
when  they  were  approached  they  distrusted  their  oppo- 
nents, and  their  polemics  was  characterized  by  much  se- 
verity. The  historian  has  no  difficulty  in  explaining  this 
phenomenon. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed 
respectively  regarded  their  disagreements  from  a 
different  point  of  view.  Although  never  willing  to 
yield  their  position  on  the  person  of  Christ,  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  the  means  of  grace  in  general,  the  Reformed 
were  willing  nevertheless  to  unite  with  the  Lutherans  or 


51 

at  least  to  step  into  a  relation  of  mutual  recognition,  to 
abstain  from  controversy  and  to  unite  in  action.  They 
were  inclined  to  regard  the  differences  as  more  or  less 
theological.  Zwingli  in  1529  offered  Luther  the  hand  of 
fellowship  notwithstanding  their  disagreement.  As 
early  as  1525  he  advised  to  treat  the  disagreement  as  a 
synkretismon.'  The  views  of  George  Calixtus,  particu- 
larly his  distinction  between  fundamentals  and  non-fun- 
damentals and  his  limiting  the  fundamentals  to  what  is 
necessary  to  be  believed  for  salvation,  appealed  to  many 
in  the  Reformed  Church.  The  Lutherans  refused  to  so 
distinguish  between  religion  and  theology  when  the  ques- 
tion of  union  and  confessional  recognition  was  under  dis- 
cussion. What  Calixtus  regarded  as  merely  theological 
and  therefore  non-fundamental,  this  the  Lutherans  con- 
sidered as  of  highly  religious  significance  because  it  de- 
termined the  real  content  of  what  Calixtus  called  the 
fundamentals.  In  the  view  of  the  Lutherans  the  species 
reveals  the  essence  of  the  genus.  So  they  looked  upon 
the  theological  differences  as  differences  that  affected  re- 
ligion itself.  The  suggestion  to  desist  from  controversy 
and  to  recognize  each  other  notwithstanding  the  exist- 
ing differences  they  rejected  as  syncretism  and  infidelity 
to  truth. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Lutherans  felt  that  their  ter- 
ritory had  been  invaded.  The  Palatinate  was  lost. 
From  here  and  supported  by  the  Philippists,  a  continuous 
propaganda  for  Calvinism  was  kept  up.  Underhand 
methods  were  used,  as  for  instance  in  Saxony,  to  crowd 
out  Lutheranism.  Hesse  became  another  center  of  prop- 
aganda. Then  followed  the  conversion  of  Elector  Sigis- 
mund  of  Brandenburg,  also  through  influences  from  the 
Palatinate  and  from  Hesse.  Historic  Lutheranism  had 
to  fight  for  its  life.  Under  the  circumstances  it  was  cer- 
tainly natural  that  the  Lutherans  were  irritated.  At  the 
close  of  the  next  chapter  we  shall  have  occasion  to  treat 
more  in  detail  of  the  psychology  in  the  controversial  ac- 
tivity of  the  Lutherans. 

I     Zwinglii  0pp.,  ed.  Schuler,  VII,  390. 


62 

There  was  a  third  reason  why  the  Lutherans  were  dis- 
inclined to  participate  in  the  conferences.  These  were 
as  a  rule  called  by  princes  favoring  the  Reformed  cause. 
It  was  particularly  in  court  circles  where  Lutheranism 
with  its  doctrines  of  the  Real  Presence  and  ubiquity  was 
looked  upon  as  a  kind  of  barbarism  as  compared  with  the 
spiritual  views  of  Calvinism  and  the  humanism  of  the 
Melanchthonian  school.  The  Lutherans  could  always 
trust  the  force  of  the  principles  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, where  these  had  opportunity  to  assert  them- 
selves; but  in  too  many  cases  that  freedom  was  absent. 
It  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  Lutheranism  was  to  be 
crowded  out.  It  was  the  State  Church  condition  that  put 
Lutheranism  at  a  disavantage  in  many  cases.  When  a 
prince  changed  his  religion,  he  had  the  legal  right  to  de- 
mand of  his  subjects  that  they  follow  him;  if  they  re- 
fused he  could  force  them  to  emigrate.  The  first  meas- 
ure was  to  drive  the  protesting  ministers  out  of  the 
country,  as  it  was  in  the  Palatinate  when  Frederick  III 
left  the  Lutheran  Church.  When  a  prince  did  not  regard 
it  wise  to  force  his  religion  upon  his  country  he  labored 
for  union  and  arranged  for  conferences  in  which  the 
Lutheran  side  was  at  a  disadvantage,  as  it  was  in  Hesse 
and  in  Brandenburg. 

In  the  account  which  is  to  be  given  in  this  chapter  not 
all  union  movements  were  of  like  importance.  Some  of 
%he  conferences  were  indeed  of  little  significance  (for 
instance  the  one  at  Moempelgard)  ;  others  were  super- 
ficial (the  Sendomir  Consensus,  the  Thorn  and  Cassel 
colloquies)  ;  others  were  under  the  control  of  extreme 
partizanship  (like  the  Berlin  Conference).  The  most 
helpful  of  all  conferences,  because  of  its  thoroughness 
and  frankness  in  dealing  with  the  differences,  was  the 
Leipzig  Colloquy. 

I.      TWO   UNION   MOVEMENTS   AT   THE  CLOSE   OF   THE   SIX- 
TEENTH  CENTURY. 

I.     The  caption  of  our  chapter  which  limits  our  ac- 


53 

count  to  the  union  movements  in  the  seventeenth  century 
permits  of  only  a  brief  review  of  two  conventions  that 
took  place  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  preceding  century. 
One  of  these  was  the  general  synod  that  was  held  in 
Sendomir,  Poland,  in  1570,  and  the  other  was  the  col- 
loquy at  Moempelgard,  held  in  1586.^ 

(a).  At  Sendomir  (1570)  it  was  the  aim  of  uniting 
the  Bohemian  Brethren  (Moravians),  the  Lutherans  and 
the  adherents  of  the  Swiss  Reformation.  A  union  of  all 
Protestants  in  old  Poland  was  urged  as  a  political  neces- 
sity over  against  the  Roman  influence  by  the  Protestant 
faction  of  the  Polish  nobility  which  was  almost  exclu- 
sively Reformed.^  The  Reformed  representatives  were 
in  the  majority,  in  fact  they  regarded  the  convention  as 
a  Reformed  synod  and,  therefore,  simply  presented  the 
second  Helvetic  Confession  to  be  adopted  as  the  Polish 
National  Confession,  The  Bohemian  Brethren  were 
willing  to  agree,  provided  their  own  Confession  was  not 
rejected.  The  Lutherans  suggested  that  a  new  Confes- 
sion be  drafted.  This  was  finally  done,  and  so  the  Con- 
sensus Sendo7niriensis  came  into  existence.*  On  the 
Lord's  Supper  considerable  concessions  were  made  to  the 
Lutherans  in  that  it  was  stated  that  the  elements  were 
not  empty  signs,  but  that  they  communicate  to  the  be- 
lievers what  they  signify,  namely  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
the  Lord.  The  Consensus  was  Melanchthonian  in  char- 
acter.^ The  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  in  Melanch- 
thon's  Repetitio  Confessionis  Augiistanae^  was  taken  over 
in  its  entirety  with  the  remark  that  it  was  in  accord  with 
the  Second  Helvetic  Confession.^  The  absence  of  Luth- 
er's terminology  and  definitions  can  be  seen  throughout 
in  the  portions  quoted  from  the  Repetitio.^     The  facul- 

2  The  old  Moempelgard  is  the  present  Montbeliard  in  France. 
(Dep't  Daubs).     From  1395  to  1793  it  was  ruled  by  Wurtemberg. 

3  Erbkam  in  R.  E.  XVIII.  23. 

4  See  the  text  in  Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  etc.  553flF. 
Also  in  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch  der  Union,  pp.  7sfi. 

5  Shaff,  Creeds  I,  587. 

6  Corp.  Ref.  XXVIII,  415^- 

7  Cf.  R.  E.  XVIII,  217,  20. 

8  Cf.  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch,  p.  75ff. 


64 

ties  of  several  Lutheran  universities  disapproved  of  the 
agreement.^  It  soon  became  evident  that  a  lasting  con- 
fessional peace  had  not  been  established.' ° 

(b).  The  Moempelgard  Colloquy  of  1586  was  called 
by  Count  Frederick  of  Wurtemberg,  chiefly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  settling  the  question  whether  the  Huguenot  refu- 
gees from  France  (Reformed)  could  be  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  at  the  Lutheran  altars  in  Moempelgard 
without  virtually  and  in  fact  making  themselves  mem- 
bers of  the  Lutheran  Church. '^  In  the  history  of  the 
altar  fellowship  question  this  Moempelgard  Colloquy  is 
of  special  interest.  The  Reformed  theologians,  here 
present,  Beza,  Zanchius,  Ursinus,  establishing  themselves 
upon  their  principle  "Sacramenta  sunt  notae  profes- 
sionis,"  took  the  position  that  one  who  was  not  of  their 
own  Church  could  not  be  admitted  with  the  Reformed  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  because  "it  would  make  too  common 
the  sacramental  fellowship-badge,  if  the  Reformed  were 
to  commune  with  those  not  under  their  banner,  but  of 
the  counterpart"  ("das  sakramentliche  Losungszichen 
gemein  machen  mit  denen,  die  nicht  des  Fahnens  sind, 
sondern  zum  Gegenpart  gehoeren.")'-  The  Lutheran 
Count  Frederick  of  Wurtemberg  declared  at  the  close  of 
the  colloquy  that  the  Reformed  should  be  admitted  to  the 
Lutheran  altar  without  losing  their  membership  in  the 
Reformed  Church.  But  this  proved  to  be  a  too  hasty 
decision.  The  Lutheran  theologians  of  Wurtemberg 
criticized  it,  and  so  the  Count  changed  the  rule  declaring 
"that  Christ  had  instituted  the  Supper  also  for  the  pur- 
pose that  by  it  as  a  mark  (Feld-und  Merkzeichen)  it  may 
be  known  to  what  faith  the  individual  is  inclining.  For 
he  who   communes   with   a  church  of  whatever  name 


9  Salig,  Historic  der  Augsb.  Conf.  II,  785. 

10  As  special  literature  we  refer  to  Rudelbach,  Reformation, 
Luthertum  und  Union,  pp.  397-407;  R.  E.  XVIII,  215-19;  SchafiF, 
Creeds  I,  586ft;  Wangemann,  Sieben  Buecher  Preussischer  Kirch- 
engeschichte  I,  376-80;  Kurtz,  Church  History,  Engl.  Ed.,  1888,  §139, 
18;  Moeller-Kawerau,  Kirchengeschichte  III,  365. 

11  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta  I,  i,  I49ff. 

12  Wangemann,  p.  152. 


55 


therewith  indicates  that  he  holds  the  doctrine  of  that 
church."^^ 

Count  Frederick  used  the  occasion  for  making  the  con- 
ference a  colloquy  on  the  doctrinal  differences  between 
the  followers  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  Thus  the  Lutherans 
Andreae  and  Luk.  Osiander  met  the  Reformed  theo- 
logians Beza,  Musculus,  Huebner  and  Alberius  for  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  following  five  articles :  The  Lord's  Supper, 
The  Person  of  Christ,  Paintings  in  the  Churches,  Baptism 
and  Predestination.  An  agreement  was  reached  only 
with  regard  to  the  paintings.  Beza  defended  Calvin's 
doctrine  of  predestination  in  its  strictest  form,  and  he 
rejected  decisively  the  Lutheran  teaching  of  the  ubiquity, 
At  the  close  of  the  conference  Count  Frederick  asked  the 
participants  as  much  as  possible  to  refrain  from  contro- 
versy in  their  writings.  He  suggested  that  each  give 
the  other  the  hand  of  Christian  fellowship.  Beza  and 
his  associates  were  willing,  but  Andreae,  while  ready  to 
extend  his  hand  as  a  sign  of  personal  respect  and  friendly 
feeling,  declared  that  he  could  not  give  his  hand  as  a 
token  of  fellowship  in  the  faith.  Upon  this  Beza  also 
refused  the  hand  of  personal  friendship,  and  they  parted 
in  a  spirit  of  irritation.^* 

II.      THE  "PFAELZER   IRENICUM." 

The  "Pfaelzer  Irenicum"  of  1606  is  here  mentioned 
for  the  sake  of  completeness.  It  was  an  anonymous  ap- 
peal for  confessional  peace  from  the  quarters  of  the  Re- 
formed in  the  Palatinate.  It  was  promptly  rejected  by 
Polycarp  Leyser  at  Wittenberg  in  a  writing  of  the  fol- 
lowing year.  He  reminds  the  opponents  in  the  Pala- 
tinate of  the  oppression  of  the  Lutherans  in  their 
country,  the  expulsion  of  the  Lutheran  ministers,  of  the 
hardship  and  the  tears  resulting  from  these  measures. 

13  Zezschwitz,  Die  kirchlichen  Normem  der  Abendmahlsgemein- 
schaft  (1870),  p.  39.  Cf.  Rietschel,  Die  Gewaehrung  der  Abend- 
mahlsgemeinschaft ;  Wangemann  I,  i.  52f. 

14  Hering  Unionsversuche  I,  274f. 


56 

He  assures  them  that  the  Lutherans  had  also  been  pray- 
ing for  at  least  a  political  peace;  but  a  religious  peace, 
a  brotherly  union  without  agreement  in  the  truth,  would 
be  against  the  Scriptures.  Galatians  2:5,  11 ;  2  John  2 ; 
2  Thes.  2 :10;  2  Timothy  2 :25  were  quoted.  By  entering 
into  a  peace  of  the  kind  as  desired  by  the  publishers  of 
the  "Irenicum"  the  Lutherans  would  practically  approve 
of  the  errors  which,  for  conscience's  sake,  they  had  to 
reject.  These  errors  were  affecting  the  doctrines  of  the 
universality  of  grace,  the  means  of  grace  and  the  person 
of  Christ.  Leyser  further  protests  against  the  distinc- 
tion made  between  faith  or  the  foundation  for  faith  and 
the  theological  opinion  with  regard  to  faith.  The  dif- 
ferences between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  he  said,  are 
more  than  merely  theological  opinions ;  they  are  insepar- 
ably interwoven  with  faith  itself.  The  errors  of  the  op- 
ponents affect  the  foundation  of  faith.  For  this  reason 
the  Lutherans  could  not  listen  to  the  appeal  to  desist 
from  polemics,  although  conscious  of  the  duty  that  con- 
troversy should  be  conducted  without  bitterness  and 
without  personalities.  The  form  and  spirit  of  the  reply 
showed  the  determination  not  to  make  peace  with  the 
Reformed  Church.^^ 

III.      THE  ADVANCE  OF  PARAEUS. 

Another  "Irenicum"  was  published  by  David  Paraeits, 
professor  at  the  Heidelberg  university  in  1614.  He  pro- 
posed that  a  union  between  the  two  churches  be  worked 
out  by  a  general  synod  of  all  Protestants  in  Germany, 
England  and  the  Scandinavian  countries,  suggesting  that 
even  before  such  a  union  could  be  realized  the  adherents 
of  both  churches  might  continue  to  hold  their  peculair 
views  and  differing  opinions  which  ought  not  to  hinder 
them  from  regarding  each  other  as  brethren  and  treat- 
ing each  other  according  to  Romans  14:  Iff.  Agreement, 
he  said,  already  existed  in  all  essentials  except  in  one 

15  The  title  of  the  writing  was :  "De  pace  ecclesiae  evange- 
licae,"  1607.     See  extract  in  Hering  I,  275-83. 


57 

point  only,  which  did  not  affect  the  ground  of  salvation. 
In  view  of  Rome's  preparation  for  a  religious  war  which 
threatened  common  Protestantism  he  plead  that  both 
sides  should  bury  their  differences.^^  But  these  sugges- 
tions of  Paraeus  were  rejected  by  the  Wittenberg  theo- 
logians, especially  in  a  writing  of  Leonard  Hutter,  and 
also  by  the  University  of  Tuebingen.  Paraeus  was  in  spe- 
cial disfavor  with  the  Lutherans,  because  in  1605,  in  pub- 
lishing a  commentary  on  the  prophet  Hosea,  he  had  dedi- 
cated his  work  to  Landgrave  Maurice  of  Hesse  praising 
him  for  introducing  Reformed  services  in  Marburg.  The 
Lutherans  (Prof.  Fr.  Bellmann  of  Wittenberg)  now  de- 
clared that  a  synod  was  unnecessary,  because  the  errors 
of  the  Reformed  had  been  sufficiently  examined,  adding 
that  it  would  also  be  impossible  because  Lutheran  theo- 
logians would  not  meet  in  peaceful  conference  with  the 
Calvinists.  Paraeus  replied  in  an  eloquent  dissertation 
in  Latin,  which  was  read  at  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of 
the  university  at  Heidelberg.^^ 

IV.      THE  COLLOQUY  AT  LEIPZIG.^^ 

This  colloquy  was  occasioned  by  a  political  convention 
between  Elector  John  George  I,  of  Saxony,  Elector 
George  William,  of  Brandenburg,  and  the  Landgrave 
William  of  Hesse.  They  had  agreed  on  a  political  union 
of  German  Protestantism  ("Leipziger  Bund",)  by  which 
they  could  resist  the  emperor's  edict  of  restitution  with- 
out being  compelled  to  unite  with  Gustavus  Adolphus. 
The  princes  in  conference  at  Leipzig  were  accompanied 

i6    R.  E.  XIV,  689,  3ff. 

17  See  the  extract  of  this  address  in  Hering  I,  286-96. 

18  Literature :  Colloquium  Lipsicum  (in  Augusti,  Corpus  libr. 
symb.  1827,  pp.  386ff.)  Hauck  in  R.  E.  XI,  363^  Meusel  IV,  23if. 
Lutheran  Cyclopedia,  p.  274.  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  SSSff.  Hering, 
Unionsversuche  I,  327-59.  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta,  I,  Book  i, 
i7off.  Rudelbach,  Reformation,  Luthertum  und  Union,  pp.  407-14, 
Kurtz,  §153,  8. 


58 

by  their  theologians.^ °  The  Reformed  theologians  of 
Brandenburg  and  Hesse,  chief  speaker  among  them  was 
Dr.  Bergius,  asked  the  Lutherans  (Dr.  Hoe  von  Hoe- 
negg,  together  with  Dr.  Pol.  Leyser  and  Prof.  Dr. 
Hoepfner,  of  Leipzig)  to  enter  with  them  into  a  pri- 
vate colloquy  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  peace 
between  the  two  churches  of  Protestantism.  Under  the 
pressure  of  overhanging  tribulation  the  unexpected  took 
place:  Hoenegg,  the  uncompromising  foe  of  Calvinism, 
and  the  two  other  men  accepted  the  invitation  with  the 
understanding  that  it  was  to  be  a  private  conference,  with 
the  object  of  examining  to  what  extent  both  sides  were 
in  agreement  with  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  con- 
ference was  held  in  the  lodging  place  of  Hoe  von  Hoenegg 
and  lasted  from  the  3rd  to  the  23rd  of  March.  The  Re- 
formed theologians  declared  that  they  accepted  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  of  1530,  emphasizing  that  the  Confes- 
sion in  this  form  was  recognized  and  subscribed  in  Bran- 
denburg and  Hesse.  But  they  stated  that  they  also  ac- 
cepted the  Variata  of  1540  and  its  successors.  They  ap- 
pealed to  the  declaration  made  at  the  "Day  of  Princes" 
at  Naumburg  in  1561  that  in  the  Variata  editions  "the 
Confession  was  merely  repeated  in  a  somewhat  more 
stately  and  elaborate  manner,  explained  and  enlarged  on 
the  basis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Here,  of  course,  was 
the  real  crux.  It  had  always  been  held  by  the  Reformed 
that  in  adopting  both  editions  it  was  permissible  to  in- 
terpret Article  X  on  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  edition  of 
1530  (the  so-called  Invariata)  by  the  more  elastic  and  in- 
definite words  of  the  Variata  of  1540  and  thus  defend 
Calvin's  conception  of  a  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  Eucharist.^"  The  difference  of  position  as  to  the 
texts  was  not  discussed.     But  the  Lutherans  stated  that 

19  The  Brandenburg  elector  by  his  court  preacher  Dr.  John 
Bergius,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  by  Dr.  Crocius  and  his  court- 
preacher  Neuberger,  the  Saxon  elector  who  was  residing  at  Dres- 
den by  his  courtpreacher  Dr.  Hoe  von  Hoenegg. 

20  Cf.  Kawerau  in  R.  E.  XHI,  665.  Rudelbach  p.  409.  Richard, 
Confessional  History,  p.  296.  Neve,  Altered  and  Unaltered 
Augsb'g  Conf.  (Luth.  Lit.  Board,  Burlington,  la.),  pp.  32,  36flf. 
Also  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  9iflf.,  and  207fT. 


59 

they  identified  themselves  with  the  declaration  in  the  in- 
troduction of  the  Formula  of  Concord  (§4).  In  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Reformed  did  their  ut- 
most to  approach  the  Lutherans  as  far  as  their  consci- 
ence would  peiTtiit.  Both  sides  agreed  that  in  the  sacra- 
mental eating  or  receiving  (sakramentliche  Niessung) 
the  earthly  elements  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  on  the  other  are  at  the  same  time  (zu- 
gleich)  and  together  (miteinander)  received  (genossen)."- 
Never  has  there  been  a  closer  approach  between  repre- 
sentatives of  the  two  churches  as  far  as  terms  are  con- 
cerned. But  even  here  the  meaning  that  was  put  into 
the  terms  cannot  have  been  the  same  on  both  sides,  be- 
cause there  was  division  as  soon  as  it  came  to  the  omni- 
presence of  Christ's  human  nature,  to  the  oral  receiving 
of  Christ's  Body  and  to  the  question  whether  worthy  and 
unworthy  alike  receive  the  Body.  In  order  to  remove  the 
offense  which  the  Reformed  usually  take  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  an  oral  receiving-^  the  Lutheran  theologians  at 
Leipzig  stated  with  much  care  that  while  the  blessed 
bread  and  the  Body  of  the  Lord  were  received  with  one 
and  the  same  organ  (uno  et  eodem  organo  oris)  yet  the 
mode  of  receiving  Christ's  Body  was  different  from  the 
mode  of  receiving  the  bread.  The  oral  receiving  of  the 
bread,  they  said,  is  without  means;  but  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  are  received  not  without  means,  but 
through  and  by  virtue  of  the  blessed  elements,  in  a 
heavenly,  supernatural  way,  in  a  manner  that  is  known 
to  God  alone,  with  the  exclusion  of  any  natural  manduca- 
tion."  In  Article  III  on  the  Person  of  Christ  a  very 
large  agreement  was  discovered,  which  was  expressed  in 

21  See  Wangemann,  p.  171. 

22  The  phrase  "oral  manducation"  should  be  avoided  as  a  de- 
scription of  the  Lutheran  conception,  because  the  Lutheran  con- 
fessions reject  decidedly  a  Capernaitic  eating  and  drinking.  The 
Lutherans  teach  an  oral  receiving,  but  not  oral  manducation. 

23  Wangemann,  ibidem.    Hering  I,  340. 


60 

twelve  essential  points.  A  disagreement  appeared,  how- 
ever, in  defining  the  states  of  Christ.^* 

Regarding  the  rest  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  agree- 
ment was  recorded  on  Articles  I-II;  V-IX;  XI-XXVIII. 
The  reader  will  ask:  Why  was  the  important  Article 
IV  on  Justification  not  among  the  articles  of  agreement? 
Here  the  Saxon  theologians  felt  that  full  harmony  would 
depend  upon  the  attitude  on  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion in  regard  to  which,  at  that  time,  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  there  was  so  much  discussion. 
The  matter  was  taken  up  in  connection  with  Article  XIX 
on  the  Cause  of  Sin.  It  was  found  that  there  was  essen- 
tial agreement  on  the  doctrine  of  justification.  The  dis- 
agreement concerning  predestination  appeared  in  this 
that  the  Lutherans  insisted  upon  an  election  for  salva- 
tion "in  view  of  faith"  (intuitu  fidei),  which  the  Re- 
formed rejected.  The  Reformed  confessed  that  only  a 
limited  number  of  men,  known  to  God  alone,  had  been 
elected  from  all  eternity  without  respect  to  a  foreseen 
faith  or  any  inclination  to  accept  grace.  But  they  de- 
clared at  the  same  time  that  they  believed  in  God's  seri- 
ous willingness  to  save  all  men,  and  they  rejected  a  vol- 
untas signi.  With  regard  to  the  non-elect  the  Reformed 
declared  simply  that  condemnation  was  the  divine  judg- 
ment following  man's  sin  and  unbelief.-^ 

It  was  agreed  that  the  particulars  of  the  colloquy 
should  not  be  made  public.  For  this  reason  only  four 
copies  of  the  protocol  were  made,  three  for  the  princes 
and  one  for  the  theological  faculty  at  Leipzig.  But  soon 
all  was  known  in  England,  France,  Switzerland,  Holland 
and  Sweden,  and  detailed  reports  appeared  in  print.-*' 

The  significance  of  this  Leipzig  Colloquy  should  here 
be  noted:     (1)  It  was  the  surprise  of  the  time  that  the 

24  Cf.  August!,  pp.  398-99.  A  thorough  review  of  agreement 
and  disagreement  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ 
is  given  in  Hering  I,  334-39.     See  also  Rudelbach,  pp.  4ioflf. 

25  Cf.  Hering  I,  34if.  Schaff  I,  559-  Collection  of  Reformed 
Confessions  by  Niemeyer  (pp.  653-68)  and  Boeckel  (pp.  443-56) ; 
also  in  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch  der  Union  pp.  96-117. 

26  R.  E.  XI,  364,  47ff. 


61 


Lutheran  theologians,  such  outspoken  antagonists  of  Cal- 
vinism as  Hoe  von  Hoenegg  and  Polycarp  Leyser,  had 
been  willing  to  spend  twenty  days  in  a  colloquy  with  the 
Reformed  and  that  the  discussions  had  been  conducted  in 
such  a  friendly  spirit.  (2)  The  Reformed  theologians 
went  to  the  limit  in  meeting  the  Lutherans,  which  can  be 
seen  especially  on  the  subject  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
(3)  The  colloquy  was  conducted  with  entire  honesty  on 
both  sides  and  with  a  thoroughness  that  contrasted  fa- 
vorably with  many  other  conferences  of  a  like  nature 
(the  Sendomir  Consensus  of  1570  and  the  Cassel  Collo- 
quy as  instances).  (4)  "The  proceedings  were  charac- 
terized by  great  theological  ability"  (Schaff).  (5)  As 
Rudelbach  observes  correctly,  this  Leipzig  Colloquy  is 
in  the  same  class  with  the  colloquy  between  Luther  and 
Zwingli  at  Marburg  and  the  discussions  that  preceded 
the  Wittenberg  Concord  of  1637.  The  differences  were 
not  smoothed  over,  but  the  participants  looked  them  into 
the  face  and  tried  to  meet  them.  For  this  reason  more 
progress  was  here  made  than  at  other  occasions.-^  (6) 
The  friends  of  a  union,  especially  among  the  Reformed, 
felt  very  much  encouraged.  Among  them  was  the 
Scotch  theologian  Duraeus  (Dury)  of  whose  life-long 
efforts  at  bringing  about  a  union  we  shall  treat  later 
(sub.  VIII). 

But  notwithstanding  all  this,  nothing  practical  and 
tangible  resulted  from  the  Leipzig  Colloquy.  The  under- 
standing was  from  the  beginning  that  it  was  to  be  a 
private  conference.  Princes  and  churches  were  not  to 
be  held  responsible  or  to  be  embarrassed  by  the  agree- 
ments that  were  reached.  The  Reformed  with  their  ma- 
terial concessions  could  promise  nothing  for  their  asso- 
ciates; not  for  their  associates  among  the  German  Re- 
formed, to  say  nothing  of  their  fellow-believers  in  other 
countries.  The  failure  to  agree  on  the  Lord's  Supper, 
particularly,  was  evidence  of  a  fundamental  difference. 

27  Read  the  beautiful  treatment  of  the  problem  of  a  true 
union  by  Rudelbach,  Reformation,  Luthertum  und  Union  p.  344, 
especially  p.  419. 


62 

Of  this  difference  both  sides  had  become  conscious  since 
the  publication  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  later 
confessions  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  various  coun- 
tries. Furthermore,  time  enough  had  passed  for  gain- 
ing perspectives  of  the  opposing  views,  which,  by  the 
activity  of  the  theologians  of  the  two  churches,  had  now 
crystallized  into  dogmas  and  confirmed  the  break  between 
the  two  churches.  The  time  for  a  union  by  agreement 
on  the  differing  dogmas  was  a  thing  of  the  past.-* 

V.      THE  CONVENTION  AT  THORN,  1645. 

Of  little  significance  for  the  purposes  of  our  discussion 
was  the  convention  of  Thorn  in  1645,  chiefly  because  too 
much  was  attempted.  King  Wladislav  IV  of  Poland  de- 
sired to  unite  not  only  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  but  with 
these  also  the  Roman  Catholics  of  his  domain.  This  was 
impossible,  because  the  Romanists  simply  wished  to  lead 
the  Protestants  back  to  the  fold  from  which  they  had 
strayed.  These  were  simply  to  see  their  errors  and  then 
to  come  back  repenting.  The  Roman  dignitary  at  the 
head  of  his  group  frankly  admitted  that  this  was  their 
expectation.  Thirty-six  sessions  were  held,  of  which 
only  five  were  public.  These  sessions  were  utterly  fruit- 
less, because,  according  to  an  order  that  had  been  given 
by  the  king,  a  disputation  on  the  differences  was  not  per- 
mitted. The  three  parties  were  simply  to  state  their 
differences  once  or  twice;  argumentation  was  to  be  ex- 
cluded. Neither  profit  nor  progress  could  be  secured  in 
such  a  way.  So  the  king  had  to  dismiss  the  convention. 
Nothing  had  beeen  accomplished.  The  Thorn  conven- 
tion is  an  illustration  of  what  can  be  expected  of  a  union 

28     Soon    the    controversy   broke    out    anew,    even   between    the 
very    participants    of   the    colloquy.     Cf.    J.    Berg's    publication    of 

1635   "Relation   der   Privat-Conferenz zu   Leipzig,   1631,"   nebst 

einer  Vorrede,  darin  auf  dasjenige,  was  Herr  Hoe  von  Hoeriegg 
zu  seiner  Rettung  fuergebracht,  gebuehrlich  geantwortet  wird." 
To  this  Dr.  Hoenegg  replied  in  his  "Unvermeidliche  Rettung," 
etc.  (1635). 


63 


movement  when  political  interests  are  the  all-overshad- 
owing motive  and  when  truth  is  not  honestly  sought. 

Two  features  of  this  convention,  however,  are  of  par- 
ticular interest  for  a  history  of  the  union  movements  be- 
tween Lutherans  and  Reformed:  (1)  The  Reformed 
theologians,  headed  by  Dr.  J.  Bergius,  court  preacher  of 
Frederick  William  I  of  Brandenburg,  brought  with  them 
to  this  convention  a  statement  of  their  doctrine  which 
was  afterwards  published  as  the  "Thorn  Declaration" 
(Declaratio  Thorunensis),  and,  like  Sigismund's  Confes- 
sion and  the  protocol  of  the  Leipzig  colloquy,  was  ac- 
cepted as  a  symbolical  book  in  Brandenburg-^**  (2)  The 
other  feature  of  interest  at  this  Thorn  convention  was 
the  appearance  of  Professor  George  Calixtus  of  the 
Helmstedt  University  as  a  counsel  for  the  Reformed  side. 
At  this  the  Lutherans  took  much  offense,  and  it  was  here 
where  the  so-called  "syncretistic  controversies"  received 
much  of  their  impetus.^"  But  conditions  had  shaped 
themselves  in  such  a  way  that  at  Thorn  there  was  noth- 
ing left  for  Calixtus  but  to  step  into  the  Reformed  group 
with  which,  however,  he  could  not  justly  be  accused  of 
being  in  harmony.  With  the  permission  of  the  Bran- 
denburg elector,  on  whose  territory  the  convention  was 
to  be  held,  Calixtus,  the  famous  exponent  of  irenics,  had 
come  from  far  with  the  intention  of  joining  the  Luth- 
erans as  their  counsel.  But  the  Lutheran  delegates,  un- 
der the  lead  of  Calovius^'  and  Huelsemann*-  refused  to 
accept  him,  and  Calovius,  particularly,  managed  to  ex- 
clude him  from  the  Lutheran  group. ^^  They  objected  to 
him  because  of  his  literary  activity  in  behalf  of  irenics 
which  from  now  on  went  generally  under  the  name  syn- 
cretism. In  order  to  become  a  recognized  member  of  the 
convention,  so  that  his  journey  would  not  altogether  be 

29  Latin    in    Niemeyer    (pp.  669-689) ;    German    in    Boeckel    (pp. 
865-884);  cf.  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch,  pp.  iiSfiE. 

30  See  Tschackert  in  R.  E.  XIX,  245ff. 

31  Later  professor  at  Wittenberg. 

32  Later  professor  at      Strasburg. 

33  R.  E.  XIX,  245,  1-29. 


64 

in  vain,  he  made  himself  a  party  of  the  Reformed  group.^* 
But  in  matters  of  confessional  difference  between  Luth- 
erans and  Reformed  he  sided  with  the  Lutherans.^^  The 
theological  position  of  George  Calixtus,  especially  his 
type  of  irenics,  will  be  discussed  in  detail  in  the  next 
chapter.^* 

VI.      THE  COLLOQUY  AT  CASSEL. 

This  conference  which  was  held  1661,  from  July  1st  to 
9th,  was  arranged  by  the  Reformed  Landgrave  William 
IV  of  Hesse.  It  was  his  intention  to  bring  the  two  uni- 
versities in  his  domain,  Marburg  (Reformed)  and  Rin- 
teln  (Lutheran),  together  into  one  faith.^^  The  Luth- 
eran representatives  (Peter  Musaeus  and  J.  Hennich) 
were  men  of  the  Helmstedt  school.  The  program  for 
discussion  covered  the  following  four  loci:  the  Lord's 
Supper,  predestination,  the  person  of  Christ,  and  Bap- 
tism. On  the  Lord's  Supper  it  was  agreed  that  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  salvation  is  the  spiritual  eating  of 
the  Body  of  Christ,  which  is  a  work  of  true  faith  in  the 
crucified  Saviour  whose  merit  is  appropriated.''^  Here  it 
may  be  of  profit  for  the  reader  to  quote  the  following 
paragraph  (61)  from  Part  II  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord :  "There  is,  therefore,  a  twofold  eating  of  the  flesh 
of  Christ,  one  'spiritual,'  of  which  Christ  especially  treats 
(John  6 :54) ,  which  occurs  in  no  other  way  than  with  the 
spirit  and  faith,  in  the  preaching  and  consideration  of 
the  Gospel,  as  well  as  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  by  itself 
is  useful  and  salutary,  and  necessary  at  all  times  for  sal- 
vation to  all  Christians ;  without  which  spiritual  partici- 

34  R.  E.  XIX,  746,  44-54- 

35  Rudelbach,  p.  418. 

36  Literature  on  the  Thorn  convention :  Tschackert  in  R.  E. 
XIX,  746ff.  Schafif,  Creeds  I,  56off.  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta,  I,  i. 
pp.  88ff.  Rudelbach,  Reformation,  Luthertum  und  Union  4i4ff. 
Hering,  Unionsversuche,  II,  1-88.  W.  Gass,  George  Calixt  und 
der  Synkretismus,  pp.  34flf.  Henke,  George  Calixtus  und  seine 
Zeit,  II,  71-110. 

Z7    Tschackert  in  R.  E.  XIX,  294,  57.    Also  p.  250,  8. 
38     Cf.  Mirbt  in  R.  E.  Ill,  745,  iff- 


65 

pation  also  the  sacramental  or  oral  eating  in  the  Supper 
is  not  only  not  salutary,  but  even  injurious  and  a  cause  of 
condemnation."  (After  these  words,  in  the  following 
paragraphs,  63-65,  a  description  of  the  oral  or  sacra- 
mental eating  is  given).  When  it  came  to  the  question 
of  the  Real  Presence  and  the  receiving  of  Christ's  Body 
by  believers  and  unbelievers  alike,  the  Lutherans  stood 
in  the  affirmative  and  the  Reformed  in  the  negative. 
But  both  parties  agreed  that  the  difference  does  not  af- 
fect man's  salvation,  especially  because  it  was  claimed 
that  in  both  churches  the  Sacrament  was  used  after 
Christ's  institution,  nothing  essential  being  added  or 
omitted.'^''  Regarding  the  breaking  of  bread  the  Luth- 
erans conceded  to  the  Reformed  that  such  practice  was 
not  objectionable,  if  it  was  introduced  with  the  consent 
of  the  congregations.  And  the  Reformed  conceded  to 
the  Lutherans  that  the  wafers  also  were  to  be  regarded 
as  true  bread. 

On  the  doctrine  of  predestination  they  agreed  that 
man,  after  his  fall,  has  no  power  to  do  good,  but  that  his 
salvation  is  entirely  the  work  of  divine  grace.  Pelagi- 
anism  and  Semi-pelagianism  were  rejected.  The  Re- 
formed emphasized  that  God  was  not  willing  to  commu- 
nicate His  grace  to  all  men  and  denied  that  the  con- 
demned were  lost  because  God  had  foreseen  their  evil  at- 
titude. But  again  it  was  admitted  on  both  sides  that 
knowledge  of  such  mysteries  is  not  demanded  for  man's 
salvation. 

Regarding  the  person  of  Christ  both  sides  indicated 
their  agreement  with  the  Christological  dogma  of  the  an- 
cient church  as  expressed  in  the  Chalcedonian  Creed  (or 
in  the  second  part  of  the  Athanasian  Creed).*"  Thus 
they  avoided  a  discussion  of  the  questions  that  separated 
Luther  from  the  Swiss  theologians.* - 

On  Baptism  they  agreed  that  infant  Baptism  is  neces- 

39  Hering  II,  133. 

40  See  Schaff,  Creeds  I,  30,  34-39.     Neve,  Symbolics  pp.  67-69. 

41  Cf.  Art.  VIII  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.     Neve,  Symbolics, 
pp.  130-34- 


66 

sary.  The  Lutherans  admitted  that  the  customary  act 
of  exorcism  might  be  changed  into  a  prayer  against  the 
power  of  the  devil.  On  this  point  Lutherans  of  to-day 
have  generally  abandoned  a  practice  which  was  abhorred 
by  the  Reformed.  Exorcism  as  the  preparatory  part  of 
Baptism  was  included  by  Luther  in  his  form  for  Baptism 
of  1523.*^  The  practice  gave  ceremonial  expression  to 
the  strong  emphasis  of  Lutheranism  on  man's  natural 
depravity  and  of  Baptism  as  the  ordinary  means  of  re- 
generation. Deeply  religious  Lutheran  theologians,  such 
as  Amdt  and  Paul  Gerhard  would  rather  have  suffered 
exile  than  yield  on  exorcism.  As  has  been  stated,  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  to-day  has  abandoned  the  old  form 
although  it  has  retained  in  its  Baptismal  formulas  the 
essential  element  of  the  ahrenunciatio.  But  a  Lutheran 
of  to-day  can  appreciate  the  unyielding  attitude  of  the 
fathers  at  a  time  when  the  attacks  upon  Lutheranism 
were  many.  He  is  reminded  of  the  words  of  Matth. 
Flacius:  Nihil  est  adiapheron  in  casu  confessionis  et 
scandali.  But  the  real  point  of  conflict  between  the 
Lutherans  and  Reformed  on  the  doctrine  of  Baptism  is 
the  question  whether  this  sacrament  is  an  actual  means 
of  grace  in  the  sense  that  through  this  act  forgiveness  is 
worked  in  the  believing  and  trusting  sinner  (as  Luther's 
Catechism  teaches)  or  whether  Baptism  is  merely  a  peda- 
gogic symbol  of  the  need  of  forgiveness  and  for  assur- 
ance— through  the  symbolical  significance,  not  through 
the  act  of  Baptism — (which  is  the  meaning  of  the  answer 
to  question  73  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism) .  This  more 
essential  difference  was  seemingly  ignored  in  the  colloquy. 
This  Cassel  Colloquy,  different  from  the  Wittenberg 
Concord  and  the  Leipzig  Colloquy,  avoided  too  much  the 
real  points  of  conflict  and  for  that  reason  has  drawn  the 
charge  of  superficiality  and  syncretistic  tendency.*^  It 
was,  therefore,  after  this  colloquy  that  the  so-called  "syn- 

42  See  a  copy  of  the  whole  form  in  Vilmar,  Pastoraltheologie, 
pp.  iioff. 

43  Once  more  we  call  attention  to  the  most  pertinent  words 
of  Rudelbach  on  p.  419. 


67 

cretistic  controversies"  which  had  been  fanned  by  the  de- 
velopments at  Thorn  were  very  much  revived.** 

It  was  chiefly  three  matters  at  which  the  strict  Luth- 
erans outside  of  Hesse  (at  the  universities  of  Witten- 
berg, Jena,  and  Strasburg)  took  offense  and  on  which 
the  controversy  centered : 

(1)  It  had  been  agreed  at  the  colloquy  that  the  con- 
troverted points  should  not  be  discussed  in  sermons  ex- 
cept when  an  explanation  was  demanded  by  the  text,  and 
then  the  preacher  was  simply  to  state  objectively  the  dif- 
ference without  imputing  doctrines  to  the  opponents, 
which  these  disclaimed.  Reformed  historians  and  advo- 
cates of  the  union  have  left  the  impression  that  this  ob- 
jectionable practice  was  found  only  on  the  side  of  the 
Lutherans  in  that  day.  But  the  Reformed  did  the  same 
and  had  done  so  from  the  beginning,  as  can  be  seen  from 
complaints  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Particularly 
when  they  aimed  at  refuting  the  ubiquity,  the  Lutherans 
were  charged  with  believing  things  which,  as  a  church, 
they  certainly  disclaimed.  For  instance,  they  were  said 
to  hold  that  Christ's  Body  was  present  in  all  the  herbs, 
the  leaves,  in  pears  and  apples,  in  beer  glasses,  in  all  the 
devils  and  in  the  lice.*^  The  habit  of  discussing  theo- 
logical problems  in  a  very  polemical  way  was  character- 
istic of  the  seventeenth  century.  That  the  Lutherans 
did  more  of  it  than  the  Reformed  is  to  be  admitted.  It 
resulted  from  their  emphasis  upon  a  sound  theology. 
But  it  is  also  largely  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  un- 
der the  protection  of  princes  who  had  begun  to  set  their 
heart  against  Lutheranism,  the  Reformed,  in  so  many 
places,  were  conducting  a  propaganda  aiming  at  the  in- 
troduction of  Galvanism.  And  it  is  to  be  explained  by 
the  other  fact  that  the  method  chosen  for  bringing  it 
about  was,  as  a  rule,  the  advocacy  of  the  ecclesiastic  for- 

44  We  give  the  following  references :  Tschackert  in  R.  E.  XIX, 
p.  250,  23ff. ;  p.  251,  49flF.;  p.  252,  26ff.;  p.  254,  44fif.  Mirbt  in  R.  E. 
Ill,  745,  45flF. ;  Hering  II,  147-80. 

45  Wangemann  I,  i.,  36.  Cf.  the  address  of  Dav.  Paraeus  in 
Hering  I,  293.    See  also  pp.  282f.,  29if. 


68 

mulas  of  the  Melanchthonian  school,  which  were  to  cover 
the  differences  instead  of  stating  them  and  honestly  try- 
ing to  solve  the  difficulty.  There  was  something  to  be 
cleared  up.  The  Lutheran  of  to-day  certainly  agrees 
that  in  many  cases  these  matters  should  not  have  been 
taken  before  the  congregations,  but  should  have  been 
discussed  in  conferences  of  theologians;  or  in  places 
where  special  circumstances  made  it  necessary  that  the 
congregation  be  educated,  it  should  have  been  done  in  the 
fine  art  of  Luther  who  could  touch  upon  these  things 
without  leaving  the  strictly  religious  ground.  However, 
fair  as  the  proposition,  agreed  upon  at  Cassel,  seemed  to 
be,  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  above-named  universi- 
ties were  not  wrong  in  their  criticism  of  that  agreement. 
It  is  one  thing  to  admit  that  theological  polemics  should 
not  be  taken  into  the  pulpit,  but  quite  another  for  minis- 
ters of  the  Word  to  bind  themselves  in  advance  and  as  a 
principle  not  to  speak  the  truth  when  it  may  be  neces- 
sary. It  was  this  that  the  Lutherans  meant  when  they 
used  to  say  that  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
have  free  course  and  should  not  be  interferred  with.*^ 
Among  the  men  refusing  to  obey  a  decree  of  such  a  kind 
was  a  religious  genius  like  Paul  Gerhardt.*^ 

(2)  Another  matter  that  became  an  object  of  dis- 
cussion after  the  colloquy  in  Cassel  was  the  question  of 
the  "Elenchus,"  or  even  "Nominalelenchus."  By  this 
was  meant  the  practice  of  the  seventeenth  century  of 
summarizing,  in  the  church  services,  the  erroneous  ten- 
dencies and  teachings  of  the  day  and  condemning  them 
(Elenchus),  in  some  cases  by  naming  the  churches  and 
responsible  teachers  (Nominalelenchus).  This  practice 
had  been  discredited  at  Cassel  to  the  great  regret  of  the 
overzealous  Lutheran  theologians.  It  was  the  age  of 
George  Calixtus  and  the  Helmstedt  school  to  which  also 
the  professors  of  the  Rinteln  university  belonged,  and 
it  was  not  easy  for  the  Lutheranism  of  the  seventeenth 

46  Cf.  Hering  II,  145,  164. 

47  Wangemann  I,  i.,  p.  I47f. 


69 

century  even  in  such  a  matter  to  adjust  itself  to  a  new 
age  which  was  coming. 

Somewhat  related  to  the  arguments  about  the  "Elen- 
chus"  wa3  another  matter.  At  Cassel  the  Lutheran  pro- 
fessors of  the  Rinteln  university  agreed  with  the  Re- 
formed of  the  Marburg  university  that  in  the  points 
where  they  were  as  yet  not  in  harmony  with  each  other 
they  should  tolerate  and  recognize  each  other  as  mem- 
bers of  the  true  Church  and  as  associates  in  the  true 
faith  of  Jesus  Christ.*^  For  this  the  Lutherans  at  Wit- 
tenberg took  the  Rintelners  to  account*^  and  a  long  con- 
troversy followed.'^*'  A  school  milder  than  Wittenberg 
which  was  under  the  lead  of  Abr.  Calovius,  had  come  to 
the  front.  It  was  the  University  of  Jena  with  John 
Musaeus  as  prominent  theologian.  It  was  a  school  which 
in  the  field  of  theology  admitted  "open  questions,"  prob- 
lems to  be  solved."  But  this  school  also  opposed  a  "tol- 
erance" of  the  kind  agreed  on  at  Cassel,  saying  that  it 
would  be  equal  to  an  admission  that  the  points  of  dis- 
agreement are  after  all  matters  of  indifference,  which 
would  be  infidelity  to  truth  when  it  had  reference  to  such 
matters  as  separated  the  Lutheran  from  the  Reformed 
Church.  It  was  the  Jena  school  which  opposed  the  new 
creed,  proposed  by  Abr.  Calovius  in  1655,  the  "Repeated 
Consensus  of  the  truly  Lutheran  Faith,"  which  Schaff 
characterizes  as  an  "abortive  symbol  against  syncret- 
ism."^- The  place  for  a  more  complete  account  of  Jena 
and  Musaeus  as  a  modifying  factor  of  the  severe  Luth- 
eranism  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  will  be  in  the  next 
chapter  when  we  shall  treat  of  George  Calixtus  and  his 
opponents;  here  the  milder  tendency  of  this  school  has 
been  touched  upon  merely  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting 
confidence  in  its  agreement  with  Wittenberg  when  it 
came  to  a  judgment  on  the  kind  of  tolerance  that  had  been 

48  Mirbt,  in  R.  E.  Ill,  745,  22ff. 

49  Tschackert  in  R.  E.  XIX,  250,  4off. 

50  R.  E.  XIX,  243,  28. 

51  See   Schmid,  Geschichte   der   synkretistischen    Streitigkeiten 
(Erlangen,  1846),  40off. 

52  Creeds  I,  Index  XI,  cf.  pp.  349-53. 


70 

agreeed  upon  between  Rinteln  and  Marburg.  As  was 
said  in  the  introductory  remarks  to  this  chapter,  the 
Lutheran  Church  cannot  agree  to  a  clean  cut  separation 
between  religion  and  theology;  in  its  view  the  latter  af- 
fects the  former  and  cannot  be  treated  as  a  matter  of  in- 
difference or  as  a  matter  of  no  concern  when  it  comes  to 
the  question  of  recognizing  a  religious  organization  as  a 
"true"  church.^^ 

(3)  Closely  connected  with  what  has  just  been  dis- 
cussed, is  the  question  of  fundamental  and  non-funda- 
mental doctrines  as  it  bears  on  the  relation  of  the 
churches  to  each  other.  The  reader  must  have  noticed 
that  in  the  deliberations  between  the  faculties  of  Mar- 
burg and  Rinteln  it  was  always  the  question,  "Is  this  or 
that  doctrine  fundamental  for  salvation?"  that  was  to 
decide  the  legitimacy  of  a  union.  Here  the  influence  of 
the  Helmstedt  school  is  obvious.  There  was  a  fallacy  in 
that  question,  particularly  in  the  way  it  was  formulated, 
that  went  undetected  or  was  ignored  in  the  quarters 
where  the  union  was  advocated.  The  problem  was  much 
discussed  in  the  controversies  that  followed  the  Cassel 
colloquy,^*  but  for  the  moment  we  shall  pass  it  by,  be- 
cause it  is  to  be  dealt  with  quite  thoroughly  in  connection 
with  the  theological  position  of  George  Calixtus.  There 
will  be  occasion  for  a  few  remarks  on  the  matter  also  in 
connection  with  the  report  on  the  colloquy  which  is  now 
to  be  taken  under  review. 

VII.      THE   COLLOQUY   AT   BERLIN    (1662)    AND   SOME    PRE- 
CEEDING    HISTORY. 

The  outcome  of  the  Cassel  colloquy  had  its  effect  also 
upon  Brandenburg,  the  future  Prussia."     Here  the  rul- 

53  Cf.  Schmid,  ut  supra,  pp.  4i2flF.  Wittenberg  as  well  as  Jena 
recognized  the  Reformed  as  a  Church,  but  insisted  that  its  Con- 
fessions erred  in  essential  matters. 

54  R.  E.  XIX,  251,  2flf. 

55  R.  E.  XIX,  252,  24flf.  Hering  II,  137,  i48ff,  I57fl.  Wangemann 
Una  Sancta  II,  i.,  137. 


71 

ing  house  of  the  Hohenzollem  was  Reformed  while  the 
people  were  Lutheran. 

Before  beginning  the  account  the  reader  is  invited 
again  to  make  himself  familiar  with  chapter  two,  VI,  e 
(p.  38ff.)  on  the  conversion  of  Elector  Sigismund  to  the 
Reformed  Church.^®  The  character  of  his  policy  has  been 
described  in  VII  of  the  second  chapter.  While  there  was 
no  intention  of  expressing  what  has  been  termed  "high 
Calvinism"  and  while  the  leaning  of  the  so-called  "Con- 
fession of  Sigismund"  to  the  well-known  Melanchthonian 
indefiniteness  and  elasticity  of  expression  is  quite  evident, 
yet,  considering  the  fact  that  he  for  himself  accepted  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  Sigismund's  position  was  clearly 
that  of  Calvinism.  The  marriage  relations  in  his  family 
and  of  his  successors  were  altogether  with  the  princesses 
of  the  Palatinate.  As  regards  the  seemingly  mediating 
position  of  the  Brandenburg  Confessions,  the  conclusion 
can  hardly  be  evaded  that  between  Calvin  and  Luther 
there  is  no  tertium  quid.  That  was  made  clear  in  VII  of 
chapter  two.  The  middle  ground  that  seems  to  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  Confession  of  Sigismund  was  merely  a 
political  move  gradually  and  unawares  to  lead  the  Luth- 
eran subjects  over  to  the  position  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism. After  having  publicly  announced  his  conversion 
(1614)  Sigismund  started  with  much  energy  on  a  cam- 
paign of  a  "reforming"  Lutheranism.  It  was  to  be 
cleansed  of  the  remnants  of  papacy.  In  the  baptismal 
service  the  practice  of  exorcism  was  to  be  removed;  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Supper  the  breaking  of  the  bread 
was  to  displace  the  use  of  the  wafers.  Doctrinally  the 
offense  was  with  regard  to  the  Lutheran  conception  of 
the  person  of  Christ,  particularly  the  teaching  of  the 
communicatio  idiomatum  and  the  ubiquity,  and  also  with 
regard  to  the  Supper,  particularly  the  emphasis  upon  the 
Real  Presence  in  the  language  of  Luther,  including  the 
oral  receiving  by  believers  and  unbelievers  alike.  There- 

56  For  a  closer  study,  see  Lutheran  Quarterly  1907,  pp.  365^.; 
Kawerau  on  "Sigismund"  in  R.  E.  XVIII,  33iff.  Neve,  "Luther- 
anism in  Germany  under  the  Church  Policy  of  the  Hohenzollern." 


72 

fore,  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  to  be  eliminated  as 
confessional  obligation  for  ministers,  and  the  Invariata 
form  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  to  be  replaced  by 
the  Variata.  By  a  method  of  coercion  which  the  writer 
has  described  in  detail  on  the  basis  of  a  large  literature 
in  the  discussion  that  was  mentioned,^^  Sigismund  hoped 
to  break  the  Invariata  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  Luth- 
eranism  and  to  open  the  way  for  establishing  the  Re- 
formed Church.  It  was  a  policy  that  had  worked  well  in 
Nassau,  Anhalt  and  Hesse-Cassel.^^  But  Sigismund  was 
disappointed.  It  was  impossible  for  the  Hohenzollern 
to  force  the  Lutherans  of  Brandenburg  into  the  Re- 
formed Church.  The  resistance  showed  itself  with  such 
a  determination  that  the  plan  had  to  be  abandoned  en- 
tirely. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  failure,  the  Reformed  Church 
of  Brandenburg  remained  limited  to  the  church  of  the 
Dom  in  Berlin  and  to  a  few  small  congregations  at  the 
places  where  the  elector's  castles  were  located.  His  wife 
and  daughters,  one  of  whom  became  the  wife  of  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  remained  faithful  to  the  Lutheran  Church.  A 
time  of  great  estrangement  between  the  elector  and  his 
people  followed,  which  lasted  also  through  the  reign  of 
his  successor.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Thirty  Years' 
War,  the  people  of  Berlin,  as  an  expression  of  their  feel- 
ing over  what  they  had  been  compelled  to  endure  under 
Sigismund,  refused  to  lend  the  least  support  to  Frederick 
V  of  the  Palatinate  in  his  campaign  against  the  forces  of 
Romanism.  After  his  defeat  in  the  battle  at  Prague 
(1620)  they  even  refused  him,  the  relative  of  their  own 
elector,  an  asylum,  so  that  he  was  compelled  to  flee  im- 
mediately for  Denmark. 

Then  came  Frederick  William  I,  commonly  called  the 

57  "Lutheranism  in  Germany  under  the  Church  Policy  of  the 
Hohenzollern,"  a  paper  which  was  read  (December  1918)  before 
the  American  Society  of  Church  History  in  New  York  and  will 
appear  in  print. 

58  Moeller-Kawerau  HI,  305f.,  307,  3o8ff.  Kurtz,  Engl.  Ed., 
§§144,  3;  154,  I.  German  ed.,  14th,  §152,  3,  5.  R.  E.  XVIII,  334,  4- 
Cf.  VI  in  chapter  two  of  these  discussions. 


73 

"Great  Elector"  (1640-88).  He  changed  the  program 
from  a  conversion  of  the  Lutherans  to  a  union  of  the  two 
churches,  which  from  now  on  became  the  traditional 
policy  of  the  Hohenzollern.  It  was  at  the  time  when  the 
Thirty  Years'  War  was  drawing  to  its  close  and  prepara- 
tions for  peace  were  being  considered  that  again  the  con- 
fessional difference  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed 
was  felt.  In  that  day  the  confessional  factor  always  af- 
fected the  political  situation.  The  Lutherans,  under  the 
lead  of  electoral  Saxony,  insisted  that  the  Reformed  had 
never  been  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and, 
therefore,  should  not  be  counted  as  such  in  the  future. 

To  understand  the  meaning  of  this  demand,  it  is  to  be 
kept  in  mind  that  at  the  Augsburg  Religious  Peace 
Treaty  of  1555  religious  toleration  and  recognition  for 
the  Protestants  was  limited  to  the  adherents  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  More  and  more  the  Jesuits  began  to 
stir  for  the  great  religious  war  by  spreading  the  news 
that  the  Lutherans  had  departed  from  the  original  Augs- 
burg Confession  (1)  because  for  a  time  they  had  used  the 
Variata,  and  (2)  when  they  did  go  back  to  a  document 
which  they  called  the  "Invariata"  they  accepted  a  text 
which  cannot  be  proved  to  be  identical  in  all  respects  with 
the  original  copies  delivered  to  Charles  V  at  Augsburg, 
the  only  copy  on  the  basis  of  which  they  had  been  recog- 
nized in  1555.  Such  was  the  significance  of  the  proper 
text  in  that  day.  The  individual  and  the  Church  outside 
of  that  basis  had  no  right  to  exist  and  was  threatened 
with  the  execution  of  the  empire.  The  Lutherans  de- 
fended themselves  vigorously  and  not  altogether  unsuc- 
cessfully by  pointing  to  the  Editio  Princeps  as  the  oldest 
edition  in  existence  and  dating  of  1530.-^^  It  is  true  that 
this  was  not  conclusive,  because  the  original  documents 

59  The  chief  writing  on  the  part  of  the  Lutherans  was  the 
publication  of  the  Leipzig  theologians  of  1628  which  has  been 
printed  in  numerous  editions:  "Notwendige  Verteidigung  des 
Heil.  Roemischen  Reischs  Chur-Fuersten  und  Staende  Aug- 
apfels  nemlich  der  wahren,  reinen  ungeaenderten  Augsburgischen 
Konfession  und  des  auf  dieselbe  gerichteten  Religionsfrieds,"  etc 
On  the  whole  controversy  see  Zoeckler,  Augsb.  Confession,  68f?. 


74 

were  not  known  to  exist;  but  neither  were  the  Roman- 
ists able  to  prove  that  the  Lutherans  were  wrong.  But 
with  the  Reformed  it  was  different,  because  they  ac- 
cepted the  Variata  of  1540  or  its  successors,  which  varied 
doctrinally  from  the  Editio  Princeps.''° 

Brandenburg's  elector  was  quick  to  see  that  with  the 
prevailing  of  Saxony's  plans  the  political  existence  of 
Brandenburg,  the  Palatinate  and  Hesse  was  threatened. 
He  refused  to  beg  for  a  special  jtis,  he  said,**^  and  in 
spite  of  much  opposition  he  finally  had  the  satisfaction 
of  being  recognized  in  the  treaty  of  Osnabrueck  as  an  ad- 
herent of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  He  refused  to 
qualify  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  his  acceptance  as 
the  "unaltered,"  because  this  term  was  intended  to  ex- 
press opposition  to  the  Reformed,  but  he  claimed  that  the 
Reformed  of  his  domain  accepted  the  Editio  Princeps  of 
1530  pointing  to  the  statement  of  the  Brandenburg  theo- 
logians at  the  Leipzig  Colloquy.®^ 

This  friction  between  Brandenburg  and  Saxony  added 
new  fuel  to  the  confessional  controversy  between  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Reformed.  It  helps  to  explain  the 
irritation  of  the  Lutherans  at  the  conference  in  Thorn. 
The  need  of  union  was  felt.  It  can  easily  be  understood 
that  the  reports  from  the  Cassel  Colloquy  encouraged 
the  elector  to  undertake  something  along  the  same  line  in 
Brandenburg.  In  fact  we  know  that  the  participants  in 
that  colloquy  petitioned  the  Landgrave  William  VI  of 
Hesse  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  Brandenburg  and 
Brunswick  in  a  movement  for  union  or  at  least  mutual 
recognition.®^  Frederick  William  was  more  than  willing 
to  respond;  he  was  even  determined  to  use  his  sover- 
eignty to  make  confessional  peace  in  his  dominions. 

His  first  step  was  the  publication  of  a  decree   (June 

60  Cf.  Neve,  Luth.  Symbolics,  pp.  91-100. 

61  Stahl,  Luth.  Kirche  und  Union,  p.  470. 

62  See  above,  sub.  IV.  R.  E.  XI,  364,  18;  R.  E.  V,  93,  4.  For  fur- 
ther reading  on  the  whole  matter  of  the  elector's  struggle  for 
recognition  we  refer  to  Wangemann  I,  i,  133-7.  Tschackert,  R.  E. 
XIX,  246,  28flf. 

63  Mirbt  in  R.  E.  Ill,  745,  33fiF. 


75 

2nd,  1662)  in  which  he  forbade  controversial  sermons 
and  the  ridiculing  of  the  doctrinal  position  of  opponents 
by  carrying  them  t©  their  logical  conclusions.  This  was 
merely  a  renewal  of  a  like  decree  by  his  grandfather, 
Elector  Sigismund.  But  Frederick  William  was  deter- 
mined to  enforce  the  decree.  He  demanded  that  every 
minister  should  indicate  his  willingness  to  obey  this  de- 
cree by  a  promise  in  writing,  a  "revers"  as  it  was  called.*** 
At  the  same  time  he  forbade  the  students  of  theology  in 
his  dominion  to  attend  the  university  of  Wlittenberg 
where  Abraham  Calovius  and  his  associates  were  wield- 
ing their  sword  of  an  uncompromising  confessionalism 
against  union  and  syncretism.**^ 

The  climax  in  the  union  movements  of  the  "Great  Elec- 
tor" came  when  under  the  date  of  August  21,  1662,  he 
ordered  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  Berlin  (which  in- 
cluded Coelln)  to  participate  in  a  conference  or  a  dispu- 
tation with  the  Reformed  ministers  on  the  following  sub- 
ject: "Whether  there  was  anything  taught  in  the  Re- 
formed Confessions  (particularly  the  Brandenburg  Con- 
fessions) because  of  which  the  individual  who  believes 
and  teaches  it  must  be  condemned  by  divine  judgment; 
or  whether  in  the  same  there  was  anything  denied  or 
omitted,  the  unacquaintance  with  which,  on  the  part  of 
an  individual,  will  make  it  impossible  for  God  to  save 
him."**"  This  subject  had  its  root  in  the  Helmstedt  the- 
ology that  had  governed  the  Cassel  colloquy.**"  It  had 
been  adroitly  worded  and  the  plan  was  evident.  To  an 
unbiased  mind  it  seemed  that  there  could  be  only  one  an- 
swer to  this  question,  and  after  it  was  once  admitted  that 
the  Reformed  with  their  faith  can  be  saved,  the  conclu- 
sion was  found  to  be  evident  to  every  fair  individual, 
namely  that  the  dissensus  was  unessential  and  that  a 
union  of  the  two  churches  on  the  basis  of  the  consensus 

64  Tschackert  in  R.  E.  XIX,  252,  4off.     Hering  II,  149. 

65  Hering  II,  148.     Wangemann  II,  i,  138. 

66  Wangemann  II,  i,  167. 

67  Here  we  have  to  copy  almost  verbatim  a  few  paragraphs  of 
our  discussion  of  "Lutheranism  under  the  Church  Policy  of  the 
Hohenzollern." 


76 

was  the  only  reasonable  thing.  It  had  escaped  the  ob- 
servation of  the  elector  that  his  proposition,  together 
with  his  union  plan,  rested  squarely  upon  the  funda- 
mental mistake  of  not  distinguishing  between  the  Chris- 
tian individual  and  the  Christian  Church.  The  individ- 
ual when  he  embraces  Christ  as  his  Redeemer  and  is  sin- 
cere in  what  he  believes  can  be  saved  in  the  faith  in 
which  he  stands;  but  to  the  Church  and  her  ministry 
which  is  entrusted  with  the  care  for  souls  it  is  far  from 
being  a  matter  of  indifference  which  faith  is  held  and 
what  is  the  doctrina  publica.  If  in  the  conviction  of 
ministers  of  the  Gospel,  one  of  two  ways,  one  of  two 
confessions  is  better — more  in  harmony  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, religiously  sounder,  safer  in  the  leading  to  Christ 
and  his  salvation — then  that  way  should  be  followed  un- 
der all  circumstances!  It  is  this  consideration  which 
forbids  a  church  union  established  upon  the  consensus 
and  ignoring  the  dissensus.  A  union  of  such  a  nature 
would  rest,  in  the  last  analysis,  upon  an  indifferentism 
with  regard  to  very  essential  matters  of  doctrinal  experi- 
ence in  the  reformation  time.  It  was  the  judgment  even 
of  John  Musaeus  that  it  ignores  the  reformation  itself. 
When  it  claims  to  be  a  type  of  Lutheranism  it  is  a  de- 
nominational neuter,  that  cannot  propagate  its  kind,  be- 
cause there  is  no  kind  to  be  propagated. 

The  conference  was  held  in  seventeen  sessions  covering 
a  period  of  one  year  and  a  half  (from  Sept.  8th,  1662,  to 
May  29th,  the  following  year)  and  was  exceedingly  un- 
edifying  and  unpleasant.  Paul  Gerhardt,  the  nightin- 
gale of  German  Protestantism,  acted  as  secretary  for  the 
Lutherans.  As  such  he  formulated,  in  Latin,  many  and 
lengthy  theological  opinions  and  drafted  many  replies  to 
the  Reformed.*^^  It  is  to  be  deplored  that  a  religious 
genius  like  Paul  Gerhardt  was  pressed  into  this  work. 
After   those    debates    and    unedifying    discussions    Paul 

68  The  originals  of  these  documents  are  preserved  in  the 
secret  archives  in  Berlin  and  are  all  printed  by  Langbecker  in  his 
documentary  life  of  Paul  Gerhardt.  There  they  cover  fifty  print- 
ed pages  in  the  German  and  Latin  languages. 


77 

Gerhardt  sang  no  more  hymns.  Theological  controversy 
is  apt  to  clip  the  wings  of  the  devotional  spirit  in  its  im- 
pulse to  express  the  deep  thoughts  of  God  and  of  the 
pious  heart  in  sacred  song.  It  may  be  that  this  is  not 
always  the  case.  Luther,  for  instance,  wrote  his  im- 
mortal catechism  of  simple  child-like  religion  at  a  time 
when  he  was  engaged  in  the  fiercest  struggle  with  theo- 
logical opponents. 

What  was  the  result  of  that  debate  in  seventeen  ses- 
sions? Frederick  William  was  disgusted  with  the  stub- 
borness  of  the  Lutherans.  He  saw  that  for  the  present 
there  was  no  prospect  of  union.  The  feeling  between  the 
contending  parties  was  more  bitter  than  before.  All  he 
could  do  was  to  insist  upon  his  prohibition  to  use  pulpit 
and  press  for  controversy.  Paul  Gerhardt  felt  in  his 
conscience  that  under  the  circumstances  he  could  not 
promise  in  writing  to  obey  the  decree.  Under  the  pres- 
sure of  many  petitions  from  Gerhardt's  congregation, 
the  elector  finally  excused  him  from  signing  a  document 
expecting  that  he  would  act  in  harmony  with  the  decrees 
without  a  formal  obligation;  but  it  was  this  expectation 
of  the  elector  that  caused  Paul  Gerhardt  to  resign  his  pas- 
torate in  Berlin.®^ 

VIII.     DURAEUS,  THE  INDEFATIGABLE  WORKER  FOR  A  UNION. 

This  account  of  the  union  movements  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  cannot  be  closed  without  a  brief  review 
of  the  life  work  of  John  Duraeus  (Dury)  who  spent 
fully  fifty  years  of  untiring  activity  in  the  task  of  bring- 
ing about  the  union  of  Protestantism.  He  was  a  Scotch- 
man (born  1595,  died  1680)  who  had  studied  in  Oxford 
and  became  pastor  of  a  congregation  of  English  settlers 
on  the  peninsula  of  Elbing  (on  the  Baltic  Sea)  which 
Gustavus  Adolphus  had  taken  from  the  Poles.  Here 
Duraeus  became  interested  in  the  union  movements  be- 

69    Cf.  Neve  in  Lutheran  Quarterly.   1907.  pp.  364,  368flF. :  "Paul 
Gerhardt  in  the  Church  Troubles  of  his  Time." 


78 

tween  Lutherans  and  Reformed  on  the  continent/" 
Through  the  Enghsh  ambassador  and  also  by  the  Swed- 
ish chancellor  Oxenstierna  he  was  encouraged  to  make 
himself  an  agent  and  a  leader  in  these  movements.^^ 

The  favorable  termination  of  the  Leipzig  Colloquy 
(1631)^2  created  an  interest  in  Protestant  union  among 
the  moderates  of  the  bishops,  and  the  Anglicans  sent  him 
to  Germany  as  their  representative.  Here  he  sought  the 
aid  of  Gustavus  Adolphus  who  received  him  immediately 
after  his  great  victory  over  Tilly  at  Leipzig/^  The  king 
promised  him  an  official  recommendation  to  the  Protest- 
ant princes  of  Germany.  But  he  did  not  give  it,  because 
it  was  not  attended  to  immediately  and  the  king  soon  fell 
in  the  battle  at  Luetzen.  This  is  the  explanation  of 
Duraeus.  The  reason,  however,  may  have  been  that 
Gustavus  Adolphus  soon  observed  opposition.  One  of 
his  court  preachers  (Fabricius)  was  among  the  oppo- 
nents, and  the  other  (Matthiae)  incurred  much  enmity 
because  he  favored  the  program  of  Bureaus.^*  Chan- 
cellor Oxenstierna  who  was  the  leading  man  after  the 
death  of  the  Swedish  king  also  refused  to  give  him  the 
much  desired  official  recommendation  because  of  the  op- 
position that  could  be  expected  from  electoral  Saxony. 
Duraeus  now  sent  invitations  for  a  union  to  many  per- 
sons of  influence  and  especially  to  the  faculties  of  all  uni- 
versities. Some  of  the  faculties  responded  with  enthu- 
siasm, among  them  Helmstedt;  but  the  stricter  Luther- 
ans everywhere  declined." 

Now  the  situation  in  England  changed.  A  represen- 
tative of  the  high  church  party  was  elected  archbishop. 
As  a  condition  of  further  support  Duraeus  who  was  a 
Presbyterian,  was  compelled  to  accept  the  ordination  of 
the  Anglican  Church.  Soon  we  find  him  in  Sweden.  It 
was  hoped  that  a  union  between  the  Swedish  Lutheran 

70  R.  E.  V,  92,  50ff. 

71  Hering  II,  90. 

72  See  above,  sub.  III. 

73  Hering  II,  91. 

74  Hering  II,  92. 

75  R.  E.  V,  93,  25.    Hering  II,  i02flF. 


79 

Church  and  the  Anglicans  could  be  effected  and  that  such 
a  result  then  would  also  have  an  effect  upon  the  Protest- 
antism of  Germany.  But  again  the  great  statesman 
Oxenstiema  refused  to  appear  as  an  open  advocate  of 
Protestant  union.  He  merely  pointed  to  the  bishops,  the 
court-preachers  and  the  faculty  at  Upsala  as  the  proper 
persons  with  whom  he  should  confer  on  the  matter.  All 
these,  with  the  exception  of  court-preacher  Matthai,  re- 
jected his  union  project,  declaring  that  there  was  only 
one  way  for  the  union  of  Protestantism,  namely  for  the 
followers  of  Calvin  to  turn  from  their  errors  and  to  be- 
come Lutherans.  The  perseverance  of  Duraeus  is  to  be 
admired.  Growing  in  the  favor  of  Oxenstierna  he  used 
the  letters  of  this  statesman  for  gaining  admission  to  the 
dignitaries  of  the  Swedish  Church,  and  he  had  the  satis- 
faction of  being  invited  to  appear  before  a  synod  (June 
1637)  for  a  colloquy.  At  that  synod  the  Swedes  told 
him  that  they  feared  he  was  too  optimistic  when  he  be- 
lieved that  the  Reformed  were  willing  to  accept  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  become  Lutherans.  As  to  the  pro- 
posed new  confession,  which  was  to  embrace  all  that  is 
fundamental,  they  said  that  they  would  be  willing  to  ex- 
amine the  same  as  soon  as  he  was  ready  to  present  it 
With  much  courtesy  they  bade  him  farewell,  but  at  the 
same  time  the  government  was  advised  to  remove  him 
from  Sweden  so  that  the  Swedish  Church  might  not  come 
under  the  suspicion  of  leaning  to  Calvinism.^® 

But  Duraeus  could  not  be  induced  to  abandon  his  pro- 
ject. In  a  sickness  which  followed  he  vowed  that  never 
in  his  life  would  he  give  up  working  for  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  and  in  his  vow  he  included  the  very  commend- 
able determination  never  to  make  his  union  program 
subservient  to  political  ends." 

In  Denmark  he  was  told  that  rejection  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  errors  by  the  Reformed  and  even  the  revocation  of 

76    Hering  II,  106-12;  117.     R.  E.  V,  93,  45ff. 
^7    R.  E.  V,  93,  50. 


80 

their  writings  against  the  Lutherans  was  necessary  if  a 
union  was  to  be  accomplished^^ 

From  his  journey  to  the  North  he  returned  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Helmstedt  in  Brunswick  where  the  atmosphere 
was  more  congenial.  Troubles  in  England  called  him 
back  to  his  home  country  where,  under  the  existing  po- 
litical conditions,  he  again  changed  his  confession  and 
returned  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Again  he  came 
back  to  the  continent,  now  with  a  writing  of  Cromwell. 
But  his  change  of  confession  gave  offense.  Even  the 
Reformed  gave  him  a  cool  reception.  Dr.  Crocius  of 
Marburg,  one  of  the  participants  in  the  Leipzig  Colloquy 
on  the  Reformed  side,  suggested  that  he  ought  to  work 
first  for  the  healing  of  the  schism  between  the  Anglicans 
and  the  Scotch.  But  this  time  he  had  come  with  the  in- 
tention to  work  among  the  Reformed,  namely  that  they 
might  agree  on  a  definite  plan,  on  a  kind  of  a  new  con- 
fession that  was  to  embrace  the  fundamentals  and  omit 
theology.  Of  such  a  confession  he  had  spoken  to  the 
Swedes.  In  his  endeavors  he  found  that  the  Swedes 
were  about  right  when  they  said  that  in  their  opinion 
the  Reformed  differed  from  him  in  their  estimate  of  the 
dissensus.^^  Religion  cannot  be  separated  from  the- 
ology, at  least  not  in  the  manner  of  the  Helmstedt  School. 
The  outcome  of  the  Cassel  Colloquy  was  an  encourage- 
ment for  Duraeus,  but  in  the  following  colloquy  at  Ber- 
lin he  was  again  disappointed. 

Having  fallen  in  with  the  political  movement  under 
Cromwell  he  now  saw  himself  branded  as  an  enemy  of 
England  after  the  restoration  under  Charles  H.  Con- 
sequently he  never  returned  to  his  home  country.  He 
died  1680  at  the  age  of  eighty-five  years  and  was  buried 
at  Cassel  near  the  resting  place  of  the  widow  of  the  Re- 
formed Landgrave  William  VI  r^ho  had  been  his  faithful 
supporter  through  many  years.  At  the  end  of  his  days 
he  lamented  that  his  life-work  had  been  in  vain. 

78  R.  E.  V,  93,  57. 

79  Hering  II,  i2oflF. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


GEORGE  CALIXTUS  AND  HIS  OPPONENTS. 


~  Literature :  W.  Gdss,  "Georg  Callixt  und  der  Synkretis- 
mus,"  Breslau,  1846.  Th.  Henke,  "G.  Calixtus  und  seine 
Zeit,"  2  voll.,  Halle,  1853-56.  Much  use  has  been  made  in 
this  chapter  of  H.  Schmid,  "Geschichte  der  synkretistis- 
chen  Streitigkeiten."  Erlangen,  1846.  This  book  deals 
in  a  most  thoroughgoing  way  with  the  principles  of  Ca- 
lixtus and  the  objections  of  his  opponents.  The  author, 
who  is  also  the  author  of  the  widely  studied  ''Doctrinal 
Theology  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,"  has  care- 
fully classified  the  leading  views  of  both  sides  as  expres- 
ed  in  the  chief  polemical  writings  produced  by  the  syn- 
kretistic  controversies.  Considering  the  methods  of  that 
time — endess  enumerations  in  ever  new  connections,  no 
distinction  between  essential  and  nonessential  materials 
and  the  failing  to  categorize  the  various  observations — 
makes  the  work  that  Schmid  undertook  one  that  no  writer 
of  to-day  has  the  patience  to  undertake  anew.  So  the 
writer  of  this  chapter  shall  content  himself  with  follow- 
ing Schmid  and  simply  refer  to  the  writings  examined  by 
him  in  foot  notes  in  order  that  any  one  may  verify  the 
statements  for  himself. 

See  the  article  on  "Georg  Calixt'  in  Meusel,  Kirchli- 
ches  Handlexikon  (1st  ed.)  I,  632ff. ;  also  Lutheran  Cy- 
clopedia, pp.  474ff.  Valuable  are  the  contributions  of 
Tschackert  in  R.  E.  on  "Georg  Callixt"  (HI,  644ff.),  on 
"Synkretismus"  (XIX,  239ff.),  on  "Synkretistische  Strei- 
tigkeiten"  (XIX,  243ff.)  See  also  in  R.  E.  Kunze  on 
"Musaeus"  (XIII,  572ff.),  also  on  "Abr.  Calovius"  (III, 
648ff.)      Kurtz,    Church    History    (Engl.)    1888,    §159. 

81 


82 

Tholuck,  "Geist  der  luth.  Theologen  Wittenbergs" 
(1852)  ;  "Kirchliches  Leben  des  siebzehnten  Jahrhun- 
derts"  (1861).  Neve,  "Die  Galesburger  Kegel"  and  "Die 
Kirchengemeinschaftsfrage  und  der  Schriftbeweis," 
1919.  The  works  of  Schaff,  Stahl,  Hering,  Wangemann, 
Langbecker  as  quoted  before. 

I.      PREPARATORY  INFLUENCES  UPON  CALIXTUS. 

George  Calixtus,  professor  in  the  University  of  Helm- 
stedt  for  forty-two  years  (from  1614  to  1656),  was  the 
man  who  furnished  the  formulas  for  the  irenic  move- 
ments in  the  seventeenth  century.  In  the  colloquies  at 
Thorn  (1645),  at  Cassel  (1661),  at  Berlin  (1662),  in  all 
the  activity  of  John  Dury  and  other  advocates  of  a  union 
in  that  day,  the  principles  that  were  back  of  the  argu- 
ments of  the  friends  of  a  union  could  usually  be  traced 
to  the  theories  of  George  Calixtus.  He  was  different 
from  the  Lutheran  theologians  at  Wittenberg,  Leipzig, 
Strasburg  and  Jena  in  the  appreciation  of  the  distin- 
guishing doctrines  of  the  churches.  A  good  deal  of  light 
falls  upon  Calixtus  as  the  theologian  of  irenics  when  we 
acquaint  ourselves  with  the  university  in  which  he  was  a 
student  and  a  teacher  for  so  many  years. 

1.     The  Helmstedt  University. 

It  is  interesting  to  study  the  early  history  of  the  Helm- 
stedt University  which  no  longer  exists,'  It  was  founded 
1576  by  Duke  Julius  of  Brunswick  as  a  strictly  Lutheran 
university.  The  Duke  himself  was  a  zealous  promoter 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Men  like  Chemnitz  and 
Chytraeus  were  his  advisers  in  drafting  the  constitution 
of  the  new  school  and  in  selecting  the  first  professors. 

I  Compare  Gass,  Georg  Calixt  und  der  Synkretismus,  pp.  lof. 
Schmid,  Geschichte  der  synkretistischen  Streitiglceiten,  pp.  1-26. 
Henke,  G.  Calixt  und  seine  Zeit,  I,  pp.  1-77.  A  monography  which 
the  writer  could  not  consult  is  Henke,  Die  Universitaet  Helms- 
tedt im  16.    Jahrhundert.     Halle,  1833. 


,    83 

But  in  the  year  1579  he  assumed  an  attitude  of  outright 
antagonism  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  conservative 
Lutheranism.^  Here  we  have,  historically  speaking,  the 
explanation  of  the  developing  difference  between  Helm- 
stedt  and  the  other  universities  of  seventeenth  century 
Lutheranism. 

Duke  Julius  was  followed  by  his  son  Henry  Julius 
(1589) ,  and  soon  a  step  was  taken,  which  in  the  course  of 
a  few  years  made  Helmstedt  radically  different  from  all 
other  universities.  John  Casselius,  a  learned  humanist, 
was  called  as  professor,  and  soon  most  of  the  chairs  in 
the  university  were  occupied  by  friends  of  Casselius  and 
advocates  of  humanism.  Among  these  was  the  brilliant 
Cornelius  Martini  of  Antwerp.  The  humanism  of  Helm- 
stedt had  its  chief  seat  in  the  philosophical  faculty  which 
had  a  dominating  influence  over  the  other  faculties.  The 
old  classics,  history  and  philosophy  were  much  studied, 
not  as  means  to  an  end,  namely  for  the  establishment  of 
Biblical  doctrines,  as  Luther  had  done,  but  as  an  end  in 
itself.  It  was  the  age  of  Descart  when  philosophy  began 
to  emancipate  itself  and  refused  to  be  the  handmaid  of 
theology. 

It  has  frequently  been  said  that  the  humanism  as  culti- 
vated in  Helmstedt  created  a  kind  of  common  ground 
with  Calvinism.^     When  this  is  admitted  it  should  not  be 


2  The  real  causes  back  of  that  enstrangement  were  not  very 
creditable  to  the  duke.  For  the  purpose  of  holding  to  his  house 
the  benefice  ("Bistum")  of  Magdeburg,  to  which  his  oldest  son 
had  been  elected  as  a  child,  he  had  him  ordained  with  all  the 
papal  ceremonies,  and  in  order  to  secure  like  ecclesiastical  pos- 
sessions for  his  two  younger  sons,  he  had  them  receive  the  ton- 
sura  or  the  shaven  crown.  In  consequence  of  these  things  he 
lost  standing  among  the  Lutheran  princes  and  theologians.  Chem- 
nitz reproached  him  in  a  letter.  All  the  ministers  preached 
against  the  offense  on  a  certain  Sunday.  The  princes  of 
Wuertemberg,  Electoral  Saxony,  Brandenburg  and  the  Pala- 
tinate sent  letters  of  complaint  and  reproach.  All  this  criticism 
irritated  Duke  Julius.  He  dismissed  Chemnitz  and  other  theo- 
logians. From  this  time  on  his  interest  in  the  work  of  Concord 
through  a  united  confession  of  Lutheranism  disappeared,  and  he 
began  to  take  an  independent  position,  which  was  gradually  seen 
in  the  character  of  the  university. 

3  Cf.  Loescher,  Historia  motuum  H,  iSjff.    Schmid  14-16. 


84 

taken  to  mean  that  humanism  as  such  favors  Calvinism 
as  a  dogmatic  system;  but  this  is  true  that  Calvinism, 
like  humanism,  is  averse  to  doctrinal  definiteness  and  to 
the  insistence  upon  dogma  as  it  has  found  expression  in 
the  Formula  of  Concord.  It  was  this  trait  of  humanism 
which  made  the  Helmstedt  theologians  Melanchthonians. 
When  the  Melanchthonians  were  up-rooted  in  electoral 
Saxony,  (cf.  chapter  two,  III)  many  of  them  withdrew 
from  theology  and,  devoting  themselves  to  philosophy, 
became  humanists.  As  such  they  frequently  became  in- 
different to  religion  and  found  themselves  in  an  attitude 
of  opposition  to  the  orthodoxy  of  their  age,  upon  which 
they  looked  with  an  air  of  condescension. 

Of  the  Helmstedt  professors  in  the  philosophical 
faculty,  however,  it  could  not  be  said  that  they  were  hos- 
tile to  theology,  not  even  that  they  unduly  exalted  reason 
and  opposed  it  to  revelation.  What  they  opposed  was  the 
barbarism  of  polemics  as  it  was  practiced  in  the  contro- 
versies between  the  churches.  They  held  that  a  different 
fundamental  education  in  the  classics  and  in  ancient  phi- 
losophy— in  the  humaniora — would  make  a  more  palata- 
ble theology.  Schmid,  the  author  of  the  well-known 
standard-book  on  old  Lutheran  dogmatics,  has  the  fol- 
lowing very  fitting  remark:  "The  staleness  and  im- 
moderateness  of  polemics,  yea,  the  coarseness  that  char- 
acterized the  controversies  of  the  time  find  their  expla- 
nation largely  in  the  neglect  of  the  humaniora;  for  in 
classical  antiquity  there  lies  a  spirit  of  moderation  and 
fine  culture,  which,  to  their  great  detriment,  the  Luth- 
eran theologians  had  been  losing  more  and  more."* 

The  humanistic  character  of  the  Helmstedt  school  was 
seen  in  its  interest  in  history  and  particularly  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  ancient  church  as  it  was  cultivated  also  by 
Calixtus  himself  when  he  became  a  teacher  in  this  uni- 
versity.^      Humanism,  when  dissatisfied  with  the  pres- 

4  Geschichte  der  synkretistischen  Streitigkeiten,  p.  17. 

5  Writings  in  which  Calixtus  emphasized  the  study  of  history 
were  his  Apparatus  Theologicus  of  1628,  and  the  Orationes  Sel- 
lectae  of  1659.  He  wrote  a  Fragmentum  Historiae  Ecclesiae  Oc- 
cidentalis  (1656)  and  various  monographies  on  the  history  of  an- 
cient dogmas.    All  his  writings  show  the  historical  view-points. 


85 

ent,  flees  into  antiquity.  There  it  likes  to  trace  the  be- 
ginning of  historical  developments  and  to  find  the  correc- 
tives for  the  misdevelopments  of  the  centuries.® 

2.     Calixtus  as  a  Student. 

It  was  this  Melanchthonian-humanistic  atmosphere 
into  which  Calixtus  came,  1603,  and  where  he  remained 
as  a  student  for  six  years.  He  came  from  Medelbye 
(Schleswig),  a  little  village  visibly  near  the  place  where 
the  writer  spent  his  boyhood  days,  at  that  time  ignorant 
of  the  fact  that  from  that  insignificant  little  place  of  sand 
and  heath  had  come  one  of  the  most  interesting  charac- 
ters in  the  history  of  Protestantism.  Here  the  father  of 
Calixtus  had  been  pastor  for  fifty  years  (1568-1618). 
He  had  been  a  pupil  of  Melanchthon  in  Wittenberg,  after 
the  death  of  Luther,  and  in  opposition  to  the  Flacianists 
he  was  an  outspoken  Melanchthonian,  an  opponent  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  On  this  question  he  had  settled  the 
mind  of  his  son  before  he  was  ready  to  go  to  the  univer- 
sity. When  the  university  was  to  be  chosen  there  was 
only  one  that  could  be  considered — Helmstedt.' 

Four  of  the  six  years  that  young  Calixtus^  spent  at 
Helmstedt  he  devoted  to  the  humaniora.  As  a  highly  ap- 
preciated student  he  soon  came  into  close  personal  rela- 
tion with  his  teachers,  among  them  Casselius  and  Mar- 
tini. When  he  graduated,  the  university  had  already  de- 
cided to  call  him  as  professor  at  the  first  vacancy.  In  the 
meantime,  Calixtus  started  on  his  extensive  travels  which 
form  no  small  part  of  his  education  as  a  theologian.  He 
visited  German  universities,  and  in  the  company  of 
a  wealthy  man  he  saw  many  places  in  Belgium,  Holland, 
England  and  France.  Wherever  he  came,  he  made  a 
close  study  of  the  churches,  particularly  of  the  various 

6  Cf.  Schmid,  p.  234. 

7  See  especially  Henke  I,  8off. 

8  The  family  name  was  Kallisoen.  In  Schleswig  to-day  that 
same  name  is  usually  Callisen.  The  young  student  at  Helmstedt 
Latmized  it  to  Calixtus  and  Medelbye  to  Medeloboa  and  so  signed 
himself  under  the  Latin  poems  which  he  published. 


86 

creeds.  He  came  into  frequent  controversy  with  the 
Romanists  and  once  had  a  public  disputation  with  the 
Jesuits.  Fear  of  falling  into  their  hands  kept  him  from 
continuing  his  educational  journeys  into  Italy.  Now  and 
then,  on  returning  from  journeys,  he  lectured  at  Helm- 
stedt.  On  December  12th,  1614,  his  Alma  Mater  called 
him  as  regular  professor  in  recognition  of  the  skill  with 
which  he  had  debated  with  the  Romanists.  In  this  posi- 
tion he  taught  and  wrote  for  forty-two  years. 

II.      THE  THEORIES  OF  CALIXTUS  AND  THE  REPLY  OF  LUTH- 

ERANISM. 

1.    Calixtus  on  Fundamentals  and  Nonfund^mentals. 

The  position  of  Calixtus  was,  generally  speaking,  that 
agreement  in  the  fundamentals  as  he  defined  them  is  a 
sufficient  basis  for  mutual  recognition  and  co-operation. 
He  did  not  advocate  organic  union  of  the  churches  before 
these  had  succeeded  in  settling  some  of  the  nonfunda- 
mentals.  But  on  the  basis  of  agreement  in  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  Christianity  he  made  an  appeal  for 
mutual  recognition  and  co-operation,  which,  he  hoped, 
would  soon  lead  into  full  and  actual  union. 

It  is  important  to  understand  what  was  to  him  a  fun- 
damental doctrine.  He  would  answer:  It  is  a  doctrine 
that  is  necessary  to  be  believed  for  salvation ;  a  doctrine 
which  no  one,  be  he  layman  or  theologian,  can  ignore 
without  endangering  his  salvation.  He  referred  to  the 
belief  in  an  eternal  life ;  that  body  and  soul  are  to  be  rais- 
ed up  to  receive  this  life ;  that  it  will  be  a  life  with  God, 
our  Creator ;  that  it  can  be  attained  only  through  Christ, 
His  Son,  our  Redeemer;  that  this  life  is  to  be  communi- 
cated by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  holy  Christian  Church.* 
Following  Bona  Ventura,  he  divided  the  material  of  the 
Church's  teaching  into  three  classes:   (1)  Antecedentia: 

g    Schmid,  referring  to  Calixtus,  Ad  Moguntinos,  theses  30-40. 


87 

Into  this  class  belong  all  religious  matters  which  man, 
without  the  aid  of  revelation,  can  know  by  his  own  na- 
tural powers, — such  as  the  immortality  of  the  soul;  also 
such  things  as  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  familiarity 
with  its  interpretation  and  like  matters:  (2)  Constitw- 
entia:  These  are  the  real  matters  of  faith,  the  objects  of 
revelation  for  the  salvation  of  man:  (3)  Conseqtcentia: 
These  are  the  doctrines  of  a  more  or  less  theological  char- 
acter that  are  derived  from  the  fundamentals  and  incor- 
porated into  the  creeds, — such  as  predestination,  the  per- 
sonal union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Supper.^"  Fundamental  to  Calixtus  were  only  the 
matters  belonging  to  the  second  of  these  categories,  the 
constituentia. 

2.    Appeal  to  Tradition  and  to  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

(a)  Calixtus  appealed  to  the  doctrinal  tradition  of 
the  early  Church,  that  is,  to  the  Church  of  the  first  five 
centuries,  or  to  what  was  then  taught  the  catechumens 
(consensus  quinqtuisaecuUiris) .  In  the  catechetical 
teaching  of  the  early  Church  he  saw  a  kind  of  a  norm  of 
such  truth  as  is  fundamental  for  salvation.  He  admit- 
ted that  the  Scriptures  are  the  sole  source  of  truth 
(unum,  primum  et  summum  principium,  Hauptprinzip) , 
but  at  the  same  time  he  insisted  that  besides  the  Scrip- 
tures the  teaching  of  the  early  Church  was  to  be  taken  as 
a  real  criterion  of  fundamental  truth  (as  an  alterum 
principium  secundarium  or  subordinatum).'^  To  prove 
his  position  he  referred  to  the  promise  of  Christ  that  His 
Spirit  was  to  lead  in  all  truth.  He  emphasized  that  the 
Church  had  had  its  purest  representation  in  the  Apostolic 
age  and  in  the  centuries  nearest  to  that  age.^^  Among 
the  Lutheran  theologians  it  was  especially  Abraham  Ca- 

10  Ad    Moguntinos    66,    71,   44.       Cf.    Schmid,    pp.    I56ff.,    i87ff., 
a67ff.,  27off. 

11  Schmid,  p.  I48f. 

12  Cf.  Schmid,  I3iflf.,  I47ff.,  245. 


88 

lovius  who  contradicted  Calixtus  in  his  theory  on  tradi- 
tion. He  insisted  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infal- 
lible norm  of  true  doctrine  and  that  in  no  meaning  can 
tradition  be  a  secondary  principle  of  truth.  He  declared 
that  it  was  arbitrary  to  limit  the  application  of  passages 
like  Mt.  16 :18, 1  Tim.  3 :15,  and  John  14 :26  to  the  Church 
of  the  first  five  centuries;  all  that  can  be  proved  from 
such  passages  is  that  in  the  Church  divine  truth  will  not 
perish.'^ 

(b)  Later,  Calixtus  did  not  speak  so  much  of  tradi- 
tion because  he  had  settled  upon  the  Apostles'  Creed  as 
the  concrete  expression  of  what  in  his  opinion  was  funda- 
mental in  the  teaching  of  the  early  Church.  He  argued 
that  the  ancient  Church  in  its  earliest  form  was  certainly 
in  possession  of  all  truth  needed  for  salvation,  and  that  in 
the  Apostles'  Creed  the  Church  had  once  for  all  expressed 
what  is  fundamental  or  necessary  to  be  known  for  salva- 
tion ;  to  this  nothing  needs  to  be  added.  Calovius  did  not 
deny  that  the  early  Church  had  the  whole  truth  needed 
for  salvation.  He  even  admitted  that  all  true  doctrinal 
development  of  succeeding  ages  could  be  in  no  conflict 
with  the  statements  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  But  he  op- 
posed the  claim  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  expresses  all 
that  is  fundamental  in  the  Scriptures ;  that  it  contains  the 
fundamentals  with  such  a  perfection  and  completion  that 
nothing  needs  to  be  added,  amplified,  or  defined,  and  that 
in  its  simple  general  form  it  is  a  sufficient  and  adequate 
norm  of  truth  for  all  times.^* 

It  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  purpose  of  Calixtus  in 
his  appeal  to  antiquity  was  to  support  his  claim  of  a 
virtually  existing  union  (communio  interna)  between  the 
churches.     Of  this  we  shall  treat  below  (sub  3). 

Before  proceeding  to  other  topics  of  the  controversy  let 
us  here  interpose  a  few  critical  remarks  on  the  subject 
under  review.    While  it  is  true  that  in  the  Apostles'  Creed 

13  Calovius,  Syncretismus    Calixtinus,  pp.  10,  143. 

3I2f. 

14  Calovius,  Syncretismus  Calixtinus,  pp.  10,  143. 


89 

we  have  an  admirable  expression  of  the  rudiments  of  re- 
vealed truth  it  is  after  all  only  a  general  outline  upon 
which  the  structure  of  the  Christian  faith,  the  fides  quae 
creditur,  in  its  individual  parts  was  to  be  erected.  The 
erection  of  this  structure  of  Christian  teaching  was  to 
take  place  through  the  process  of  a  progressive  doctrinal 
experience,  chiefly  in  conflict  with  error.  In  the  articles 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  it  developed  out  of  the  Baptis- 
mal Formula  we  have  the  formulation  of  only  the  first 
doctrinal  experience  of  the  ancient  Church.  To  demand 
of  the  Church  after  the  Reformation  that  it  should  limit 
its  public  confession  to  the  statements  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed  would  be  equal  to  compelling  the  full-grown  man  to 
return  again  to  the  stage  of  development  of  the  boy. 

3.     The  Apostles'  Creed  and  Later  Creeds.    Religion  as 
an  Opposite  to  Theology. 

(a)  The  position  of  Calixtus.  Baur,  the  founder  of 
the  Tuebingen  School,  once  said  that  Calixtus  undertook 
to  lead  the  Church  back  from  theology  to  religion.  And 
indeed,  his  attempt  to  put  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  other  creeds  of  Christendom  was  an  endeavor 
to  establish  religion  and  theology  as  opposites.  That 
this  cannot  be  done  in  entire  harmony  with  the  genius  of 
Lutheranism  will  be  shown  in  a  later  section  of  this  chap- 
ter (sub.  III). 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  Calixtus  had  established  him- 
self upon  a  distinction  between  fundamentals  and  non- 
fundamentals.  Fundamental,  he  said,  is  what  is  neces- 
sary to  be  known  and  to  be  believed  for  salvation.  To 
the  plain  statements  of  the  Apostles'Creed  nothing  of  a 
fundamental  nature  can  be  added.  The  later  more  elabo- 
rate creeds  contain  fundamentals  only  where  the  sub- 
stance of  that  creed  is  repeated  in  a  practically  identical 
form ;  wherever  the  later  creeds  offer  interpretation  and 
qualification  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  additional  ma- 
terial, there  they  no  longer  express  fundamentals.  Such 
interpretative  and  supplementary  matter  which  was  ne- 


90 

cessitated  by  the  activity  of  the  heretics  has  no  signifi- 
cance for  the  ordinary  Christian ;  it  is  material  for  teach- 
ers only,  by  which  these  should  be  guided  in  their  work.^"* 
Many  of  the  Church's  teachers,  however,  Calixtus  con- 
tinued, have  made  the  mistake  of  delving  too  much  into 
mysteries,  such  as  the  Trinity,  the  two  natures  of  Christ, 
original  sin,  the  relation  of  God's  grace  to  man's  will  in 
conversion  and  other  matters.  They  should  have  con- 
tented themselves  with  simply  teaching  what  is  clearly 
revealed  and  needs  to  be  known  for  salvation.  So  Calix- 
tus, as  an  irenic,  argued  in  his  zeal  for  bridging  the 
chasm  between  the  churches  and  tried  to  make  the  dif- 
ferences appear  to  be  of  minor  consideration.  He  la- 
mented that  the  terms  of  the  school  had  been  permitted 
to  coin  the  expressions  of  pure  religion,  such  statements, 
for  instance,  as  this :  that  he  who  repents  and  believes  in 
Christ  and  accepts  His  merit  has  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
shall  have  eternal  life.'^  He  did  not  deny  that  occasions 
might  arise  when  a  teacher  is  compelled  to  go  beyond  the 
clearly  revealed  statements  of  Scripture  (p.  152).  But 
this,  he  said,  should  be  done  only  in  theological  discussion, 
with  much  reticence  and  with  a  consciousness  that  man 
will  always  be  denied  a  full  insight  into  the  mysteries  of 
the  Christian  faith  (154).  Then  he  insisted,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  such  doctrinal  differences  are  not  fundamental 
for  salvation  and,  therefore,  do  not  affect  the  virtual 
union  (communio  virtualis)  between  the  churches. 

Regarding  the  later  and  more  theological  creeds,  Ca- 
lixtus made  a  distinction  between  the  creeds  of  the  first 
five  centuries  and  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation  age. 
Upon  the  former  he  looked  as  confessional  testimonies  of 
the  theologically  fundamental  period  of  the  Church's 
life — theological  in  character,  and  for  that  reason  not 
necessary  for  salvation, — but  offering  a  basis  upon  which 
all  the  churches  ought  to  be  able  to  unite.  As  to  the 
confessions  of  the  Reformation,  he  would  again   say: 


15  Cf.  Schmid,  pp.  i48f,  i5iff.,  i6o. 

16  See  Schmid,  162. 


91 

Either  they  repeat  the  plain  statements  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  and  in  such  parts  they  are  fundamental  for  salva- 
tion; or  they  interpret  that  creed  and  deduct  additional 
doctrines  from  it  (per  consequentiam),  in  which  cases 
they  constitute  no  articles  of  faith,  but  are  intended  to 
serve  only  the  teachers  of  the  Church.  He  even  went  so 
far  as  to  call  the  doctrinal  differences  between  the 
churches  "questiones  annatae."'^ 

(b)  Reply  from  the  Lutherans.  The  opponents  of 
Calixtus  (Calovius,  Huelsemann,  Dannhauer  and  also 
Musaeus)  had  a  different  appreciation  of  the  more  theo- 
logical creeds  of  Christendom,  and  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  in  the  main  they  were  correct  in  their  positions.  To 
them  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  merely  a  general  outline  of 
the  Church's  faith,  a  first  attempt  to  state  the  essentials 
of  truth.  The  statements  of  this  creed,  they  would  say, 
expressed  the  Christian  faith  seminally,  with  the  need  of 
development  and  further  unfolding. 

The  leading  objections  of  Calovius  were  as  follows: 
The  Apostles'  Creed  was  not  formulated  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  to  the  believers  of  all  ages  a  really  complete 
summary  of  the  Christian  faith,  otherwise  the  Nicene 
and  the  Chalcedonian  creeds  would  never  have  been 
drafted.  The  later  creeds  of  the  ancient  Church,  how- 
ever, do  not  make  it  their  object  to  interpret  or  to  supple- 
ment the  Apostles'  Creed;  they  were  simply  written  to 
meet  the  errorists  of  the  age,  such  as  Arius,  who  denied 
the  full  divinity  of  Christ,  the  Macedonians  who  denied 
the  personality  and  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit,  the  Nesto- 
rians  and  Monophysites  who  held  fundamental  errors  re- 
garding person  and  nature  in  Christ.  In  meeting  such 
errorists,  the  Church  found  itself  called  upon  to  state 
other  features  of  revealed  truth,  which  were  essential  and 
fundamental,  but  had  so  far  not  been  generally  recogniz- 
ed. He  took  the  position  that  all  revealed  truth  is  fun- 
damental for  salvation  in  one  or  another  way,  and  that  in 

17  See  Schmid,  pp.  200,  209.  Cf.  Meuscl,  Kirchliches  Handlexi- 
kon  I,  634. 


92 

the  later  creeds  of  the  first  five  centuries,  as  also  of  the 
Reformation,  we  have  new  and  needed  statements  of 
Scripture  truths.  And  these,  he  insisted,  have  their  sig- 
nificance not  merely  for  the  teacher  of  the  Church,  but  for 
every  soul.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  confessions  of 
Lutheranism  contain  articles  of  faith,  that  must  also  be 
counted  among  the  fundamentals.^*  Calovius  pointed  to 
the  undeniable  fact  that  the  various  heresies,  which  had 
been  the  occasion  for  the  development  of  the  dogma,  con- 
stituted temptations  and  dangers  for  the  life  of  the 
Church,  and  that  their  rejection  in  the  creeds  had  much 
to  do  with  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  for  this  reason  the 
creeds  offer  an  important  message  for  the  common  Chris- 
tian, even  if  it  is  the  special  duty  of  the  teacher  to  inter- 
pret that  message.'" 

4.     The  Inner  Union  Claimed  by  Calixtv^, 

On  the  basis  of  his  theory  of  fundamentals  and  non- 
fundamentals  in  connection  with  his  distinction  between 
Apostles'  Creed  and  later  creeds,  Calixtus  declared  that 
notwithstanding  the  external  division  there  was  a  virtual 
union  (communio  interna)  between  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed and  even  Rome,  that  needed  only  to  be  recognized. 
He  admitted  that  an  outward  union  (communio  actualis 
et  externa  per  sacramentum)  was  not  possible  as  long  as 
these  churches  were  wrongfully  charging  each  other 
with  fundamental  errors.  He  admitted  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  serious  obstacle  to  an  exter- 
nal union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed,^**  but  not  be- 
cause of  the  doctrinal  difference  in  itself — for  it  is  not  a 
fundamental  doctrine — but  because  of  the  place  of  this 
sacrament  in  the  cultus  of  the  Church  and  because  of  the 
tenacity  with  which  the  churches  hold  to  their  differing 
opinions.*' 

i8    Cf.  Schmid,  p.  201. 

19  See  Calovius,  Syncretismus  Calixtinus,  pp.  143,  150,  153,  and 
many  other  places ;  also  Digressio  de  Nova  Theologia,  p.  910.  Cf. 
Schmid,  ut  supra,  pp.  I47ff.,  20off.,  247-53,  29iff.,  409ff. 

20  Cf.  Schmid,  pp.  172,  i87ff.,  191  ff.,  232flF. 

21  Cf.  Schmid,  pp.  172,  175-77,  i87ff.,  i9iflF.,  232. 


93 

The  Lutherans  admitted  that  they  had  much  in  com- 
mon with  the  Reformed.  Notwithstanding  hard  words 
that  fell  in  the  controversy,  they  did  not  seriously  regard 
the  Reformed  like  Jews  and  heathen,  not  even  as  sects 
like  the  Anabaptists  and  Socinians.  They  accorded  them 
the  name  of  a  church."  But  they  denied  the  existence 
of  a  real  union  in  the  faith.  The  differences,  to  them, 
were  differences  in  the  faith.  Calixtus  insisted  upon  dis- 
tinguishing in  every  doctrine  between  the  quid  and  the 
quomodo,  that  is  between  the  substance  and  the  manner 
of  teaching  it.  But  the  Lutherans  answered :  It  is  not 
enough  to  know  that  Christ  is  the  Saviour,  but  it  is  also 
necessary  to  know  how  He  saves;  the  teaching  on  the 
way  of  salvation,  on  the  means  of  grace  and  on  man's 
attitude  are  by  no  means  nonfundamental  matters.  It  is 
in  the  conflicts  on  these  very  important  doctrines,  they 
insisted,  that  the  differences  on  the  commonly  accepted 
doctrines  appear.  Dannhauer  declared:  The  churches 
accept  the  words  of  the  creed,  but  they  disagree  in  the 
meaning  of  them,  which  shows  that  the  assumption  of  an 
existing  union  is  after  all  a  deception.^^ 

The  Lutherans  refused  to  distinguish  between  funda- 
mentals and  nonfundamentals  after  the  theory  of  Calix- 
tus. Their  arguments  were  as  follows :  The  Scriptures 
speak  of  no  such  distinction  and  draw  no  line.  Truth  is 
an  organism.  In  this  organism  there  are  parts  of  seem- 
ingly minor  importance,  but  even  these  cannot  be  re- 
moved without  injuring  the  whole.  Dannhauer  declared 
it  to  be  a  mistake  to  call  only  those  doctrines  articles  of 
faith,  which  must  be  believed  for  salvation;  many  doc- 
trines of  Scripture,  which  are  not  fundamental  in  that 
sense,  are  nevertheless  articles  of  faith  because  of  the 
help  and  comfort  they  give  to  the  seeking  sinner  and  to 
the  Christian.  As  such  he  mentions  the  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Supper.^* 

22  Schmid,  pp.  211,  306. 

23  Mysterium  Syncretismi,  p.  45.     Schmid,  2goff. 

24  Cf.  Schmid,  pp.  217,  293. 


94 

Calixtus  took  the  position  that  no  church  could  call 
itself  the  true  Church,  because  all  churches,  Rome  in- 
cluded, have  the  fundamentals  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  He 
regarded  the  Lutheran  Church  as  the  purest  in  theology, 
but  in  matters  necessary  for  salvation  he  could  see  no  dif- 
ference. The  greater  or  lesser  purity,  he  said,  was  touch- 
ing not  the  religion,  but  merely  the  theology  of  the 
churches.^^ 

It  was  in  connection  with  the  problem  of  an  existing 
virtual  union  between  the  churches  that  the  question  was 
asked:  Who  is  a  heretic  and  what  is  a  heresy?  Here 
Calixtus  had  to  express  himself.  In  consistency  with  his 
leading  views  he  said:  We  must  distinguish  between 
error  and  heresy.  Departure  from  the  statements  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed  constitutes  a  heresy,  and  a  heretic,  in 
this  sense,  is  not  in  the  union  of  faith  with  other  Chris- 
tians. But  departure  from  the  teaching  of  the  later 
creeds  and  from  the  doctrinal  matters  derived  from  the 
Apostles'  Creed  per  consequentiam  constitutes  merely  an 
error  which  does  not  affect  the  union  of  faith. -•*  A  here- 
tic, then,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term,  is  he  only,  who 
rejects  an  article  of  faith  as  it  is  plainly  expressed  in  the 
Apostles'  Creed.-^  Furthermore,  it  is  one  who  rejects 
that  article  of  faith  consciously  and  who  intentionally 
makes  himself  the  cause  of  a  schism,  not  one  who  by 
providence  finds  himself  in  a  schismatic  communion.-^ 
The  Lutherans  objected  to  the  distinction  between 
Apostles'  Creed  and  later  creeds  in  this  discussion.  Ca- 
lovius  declared  that  such  a  definition  of  heresy  was  cer- 
tainly opposed  to  the  practice  of  the  Church  which  de- 
manded subscription  to  the  later  creeds  as  proof  of  or- 
thodoxy.^^ He  further  reminded  Calixtus  that  if  adop- 
tion of  the  Apostles'  Creed  only  is  sufficient  as  evidence 


25  Schmid,  pp.  172,  221,  225. 

26  Schmid,  pp.   i72ff.,  26off.  Calixtus,  Desiderium  et   Stud.,  etc., 
§6    De  Tolerantia,  thesis  4. 

27  Ad  Moguntinos,  th.  86. 

28  Calixtus.  Epicrisis  Theol.,  th.  44. 

29  Schmid,  262.     Calovius,  Syncretismus  Calixtinus,  pp.  164,  167. 


95 

of  orthodoxy  then  even  the  Arians,  Socinians,  Arminians 
and  Anabaptists  could  not  have  been  charged  with 
heresy.^" 

As  we  have  seen,  Calixtus  did  not  demand  an  organic 
union  of  the  churches  as  long  as  serious  theological  dif- 
ficulties stood  in  the  way,  but  he  pleaded  for  the  recogni- 
tion of  an  existing  union  (communio  virtulis  )in  the 
fundamentals  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  On  this  basis  he  de- 
manded an  attitude  of  mutual  recognition  of  each  other  as 
true  churches  being  orthodox  in  the  fundamentals  of  the 
faith.  The  Lutherans  declared  that  if  there  were  a  real  in- 
ner union  in  the  matters  pertaining  to  salvation  then  the 
obstacle  for  an  external  union  would  be  removed  and  the 
full  union  should  be  consummated,  but  they  denied  the 
existence  of  an  inner  union  and,  therefore,  declared  that 
a  recognition,  such  as  Calixtus  was  advocating,  would  be 
infidelity  to  truth.  Even  the  milder  university  of  Jena 
with  John  Musaeus  took  this  position.  Rejecting  the 
theory  of  Calixtus  regarding  the  fundamentals,  these 
Jena  theologians  declared  that  the  Church  is  steward  not 
merely  over  a  certain  number  of  doctrines  that  seem  to 
be  particularly  important,  but  over  all  revealed  truth  that 
is  helpful  in  leading  souls  in  the  way  of  salvation.  They 
argued  that  if  the  Lutheran  Church  is  serious  in  her  par- 
ticular confession  and  is  appealing  to  the  Scriptures  with 
good  conscience  she  cannot  recognize  the  opposing 
churches  as  orthodox  and  evangelical,  but  is  in  duty 
bound  to  testify  against  their  errors;  otherwise  she 
would  be  espousing  the  principle  that  one  conception  of 
religion  is  as  good  as  the  other.^^  They  recognized  with 
the  Formula  of  Concord  that  in  the  other  churches  there 
are  many  true  Christians  that  are  erring  innocently. 
These,  they  said,  can  be  regarded  as  brethren.  But,  it 
was  added,  there  is  not  always  a  way  of  knowing  their 
inner  attitude  and,  therefore,  the  rule  will  have  to  be  that 
individuals  must  be  judged  after  their  public  confession 


30  Schmid,  263.     Calovius,  Digressio,  p.  923. 

31  Report  of  the  faculty,  published  in  Calovius'  Historia  Syn- 
cretismi,  pp.  999fT. 


96 

in  the  church  in  which  they  are  members.  As  to  recog- 
nizing other  churches  as  true  churches  the  position  was 
taken  that  this  could  not  be  done  consistently  when  these 
had  confessionally  established  themselves  upon  positions 
subversive  of  the  creed  of  the  church  of  which  recogni- 
tion is  expected.^2 

III.    AN  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  CALIXTUS  AND  OF 
THE  LUTHERANS  OF  HIS  AGE. 

1.     Distinction  Between  Church  and  Individual. 

(a)  The  distinction  between  fundamentals  and  non- 
fundamentals,  when  applied  to  the  question  of  mutual 
recognition,  in  the  hope  of  union,  cannot  be  made  by  ask- 
ing :  What  is  indispensable  for  the  individual  to  know  and 
to  believe  in  order  to  be  saved?  Calixtus  failed  to  dis- 
tinguish between  Church  and  individual.  Regarding  the 
individual,  salvation  depends  upon  an  attitude  of  the  soul 
to  Christ,  not  upon  the  knowledge  and  acceptance  of  a 
fixed  number  of  doctrines.  But  it  is  also  true,  having 
faith  in  Christ.the  intellect  is  not  altogether  passive.  The 
Gospel  which  is  accepted  calls  for  a  doctrinal  expression 
even  in  the  mind  of  the  common  believer.  But  no  hard 
and  comprehensive  rule  can  be  made  as  to  the  details  of 
such  doctrinal  expression.  For  an  individual  with  little 
religious  training,  when  it  comes  to  the  last  struggle,  it 
may  be  only  one  thought  centering  about  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  from  sin,  consequently  much  less  than  is  con- 
tained in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  In  another  again,  who 
grew  up  in  a  Christian  environment  under  careful  in- 
struction in  Scripture  truth  a  much  larger  insight  into 
divine  truth  would  be  natural,  so  that  elements  of  even 
the  later  creeds  would  be  embraced  in  his  confession. 
And  then  again,  it  is  one  thing  not  to  know  or  not  to  have 
a  clear  conception  of  fundamental  truth,  and  quite  an- 

32    Cf.  Schmid,  pp.  413^- 


97 

other  to  reject  such  truth  with  purpose  and  against  con- 
viction. It  should  also  not  be  denied  that  a  larger  reli- 
gious knowledge  is  helpful  to  the  soul  in  finding  the  way 
of  salvation.  But  in  the  whole  discussion  too  much  was 
left  out  of  consideration  that  the  question  is  an  alto- 
gether different  one  when  the  object  in  view  is  the 
mutual  recognition  of  the  churches  and  when  the  aim  is  to 
prepare  the  way  for  Church  union.  Here  the  Lutherans 
were  right  when  they  took  the  position  that  all  Scripture 
truth  is  fundamental,  which  aids  the  Church  in  its  work 
of  winning  souls  for  Christ  and  of  leading  the  congrega- 
tion of  believers  in  all  truth.^^ 

(b)  Calixtus  demanded  that  churches  of  different 
creeds  should  recognize  each  other  as  "true"  churches. 
To  support  his  demand  he  asked  his  Lutheran  opponents : 
Can  the  members  of  other  churches  not  be  saved?  God 
Himself  adopts  His  children,  and  we  must  recognize  them 
as  brethren  in  the  faith.^*  Such  argument  sounded  well 
and  was  bound  to  make  the  position  of  Calixtus  popular. 
But  Schmid  remarks  very  correctly  that  this  argument 
was  forcing  the  question  and  cutting  the  knot  of  a  prob- 
lem which  he  was  unable  to  solve  theologically  (p.  213). 
Is  it  not  possible  for  a  Lutheran  with  right  views  on  the 
relation  between  the  visible  and  the  invisible  Church  to 
believe  that  there  are  children  of  God  and,  therefore, 
members  of  the  One  Holy  Christian  Church  in  other 
churches  and  in  individual  cases  even  to  recognize  them 
as  such,  but  at  the  same  time  to  say  with  Art.  VII  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession:  "The  Church  is  the  congrega- 
tion of  saints,  in  which  the  Gospel  is  rightly  (recte) 
taught  and  the  sacraments  rightly  (recte)  administer- 
ed?^^    According  to  the  Lutheran  conception,  Scriptural 

33  See  the  fine  discussion  of  Stahl  in  Lutherische  Kirche  und 
Union,  pp.  339ff. 

34  Schmid,  p,   173. 

35  This  twice  repeated  recte  was  not  in  the  earlier  drafts  of 
the  Confession,  but  was  added  by  Melanchthon  before  its  delivery 
at  Augsburg.  Postscripts  are  never  slips  of  the  pen,  but  are  seri- 
ously meant.  This  recte  is  again  twice  repeated  in  the  Apology. 
Cf.  Neve,  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  I74fif. 


98 

teaching  of  the  faith  is  one  mark  of  the  Church  where  it 
comes  into  visibility  as  an  outward  organization.^^ 

(c)  The  Lutherans  of  the  age  of  Calixtus  inclined  to 
the  other  mistake :  They  made  Christianity  and  the  sal- 
vation of  the  individual  too  much  dependent  upon  ortho- 
doxy of  faith.  They  overlooked  the  fact  that  a  sincere 
Christian  can  live  in  doctrinal  errors  and  may  even  de- 
fend them.  They  said:  When  he  has  been  sufficiently 
instructed  then  the  responsibility  is  upon  him.  But  con- 
sidering the  tenacity  of  prejudices,  the  natural  fidelity  to 
the  church  into  which  an  individual  was  bom  and  the 
influence  of  environment,  the  seventeenth  century  Luth- 
erans were  not  right  when  they  took  the  position  that 
"sufficient  instruction"  is  bound  to  convert  the  lover  of 
truth.  They  were  defective  in  their  psychology.  But  in 
this  they  were  right:  that  in  the  relation  of  church  to 
church,  recognition  of  an  existing  internal  union  and 
public  fellowship  in  the  faith  must  be  regulated  by  the 
public  profession. 

Note.  A  few  remarks  on  the  definition  of  heresy  may 
here  find  a  place.  The  statement  of  Calixtus,  when  he 
limited  the  application  of  heresy  to  doctrines  opposed  to 
the  statements  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  cannot  be  accepted, 
because  the  later  and  more  theological  creeds  also  deal 
with  matters  essential  to  the  faith.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  his  desire  to  distinguish 
between  outright  heresy  and  mere  error  he  was  giving 
expression  to  a  fact  generally  acknowledged  among  the 
Lutherans  of  to-day,  namely  that  there  is  indeed  an  es- 
sential difference  between  errors  such,  for  instance,  as 
are  held  by  the  Socinians  and  those  that  mark  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed. 


36  For  a  complete  discussion  of  the  problems  here  involved 
the  writer  must  refer  to  his  interpretation  of  Article  VII  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  in  "The  Augsburg  Confession."  (Luth.  Pub- 
lication Society,  Philadelphia,  1914),  pp.  92flf.,  and  in  "Introduc- 
tion to  Lutheran  Symbolics"  (Lutheran  Book  Concern,  Columbus, 
O.,  1917),  pp.  173-82. 


99 

2.  The  Teaching  of  Calixtus  as  a  Reaction  Against  the 
Orthodoxism  of  His  Age. 
From  the  standpoint  of  conservative  Lutheranism  the 
positions  of  Calixtus,  as  they  have  been  viewed,  cannot 
be  accepted.  This  has  been  the  practically  unanimous 
verdict  of  the  Lutherans  of  his  own  age  (the  more  liberal 
Jena  School  included),  of  the  great  Lutheran  theologians 
who  wrote  in  the  second  third  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
and  of  Lutheranism  in  America.^^  But  an  erroneous  po- 
sition strong  enough  to  create  a  school  usually  derives  its 
life  from  the  need  of  opposition  to  another  extreme.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  in  the  age  of  Calixtus  Lutheranism 
was  in  need  of  correctives.  Orthodoxy  had  degenerated 
into  orthodoxism.^^  The  continuous  controversies  be- 
tween Lutheranism  and  Calvinism  had  led  to  an  intel- 
lectualism  and  to  a  preaching  of  pure  theology  in  the  pul- 
pits, which  yielded  little  bread  to  Gospel-hungry  souls. 
The  ubiquity  was  a  favored  subject  for  discussion  in  the 
sermons.  The  appeal  to  the  congregations  was  of  such 
a  nature  that  the  layman  was  hardly  regarded  a  full 
Christian  unless  he  was  a  theologian.  And  with  it  all 
went  a  polemics  that  in  most  cases  was  out  of  place  in 
the  pulpits.^''  The  Lutherans  of  the  seventeenth  century 
went  too  far  in  identifying  religious  truth  with  the  theo- 
logical and  dialectical  formulation  of  the  same.  In  the 
practical  life  of  the  Church  there  are  situations  where,  in 
the  application,  a  distinction  between  religion  and  the- 
ology must  be  observed.  In  denominational  problems  it 
has  not  always  been  easy  to  properly  distinguish  between 
the  fides  qua  and  the  fides  quae  creditur,  that  is,  the  sub- 
jective and  the  objective  faith.  In  the  distinction  of 
Calixtus  between  the  simple  facts  of  the  Apostles*  Creed 
and  the  later  creeds  of  a  more  theological  nature,  we  have 
the  reaction  against  the  intellectualism  of  the  seventeenth 

37  We   refer  to  the  article  "Georg  Calixt"  in   Meusel,  Kirchl. 
Handlexikon  I,  632flf. 

38  Cf.  Kurtz,  Church  History,  1888,  Sec.  159. 

39  We  refer  to  chapter  III,  Sect.  VI,  i,  p.  67. 


100 

century  Lutheranism.  But  the  theory  of  Calixtus  was 
unacceptable.  His  distinction  between  religion  and  the- 
ology was  too  mechanical.  It  must  never  be  left  out  of 
view  that  to  a  certain  degree  theology,  true  Scriptural 
theology,  will  always  have  to  be  the  form  of  the  objective 
faith,  without  which  a  healthy  subjective  faith  cannot  be 
cultivated  in  the  Church. 

3.     The  "Internal  Union." 

Calixtus'  assertion  of  a  practically  existing  internal 
union  (communio  interna  virtualis)  could  be  made  only 
by  an  almost  entire  abstraction  from  the  objective  faith, 
the  fides  quae  creditur.  Common  recognition  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed  did  not  mean  much,  because  the  differ- 
ences appeared  in  the  interpretation  of  that  creed.*** 
That  internal  union,  then,  had  a  certain  degree  of  reality 
only  when  regard  was  had  to  the  fides  qua  creditur,  that 
is  to  the  relation  and  attitude  of  the  heart  to  God  and  His 
Son  as  Saviour  from  sin.  The  Pietists,  especially  the 
newly  converted  among  them,  are  always  unionists  when 
it  comes  to  denominational  problems.  The  profound  im- 
pression from  their  religious  experience  leads  them  to 
regard  all  as  brethren  in  the  faith  who  have  had  a  like 
experience.  But,  if  the  spiritual  development  and  growth 
of  such  a  newly  converted  individual  is  normal,  then  the 
time  is  bound  to  come  when  he  feels  the  need  of  linking 
his  religious  experience  with  the  doctrinal  experiences  of 
the  historic  Church.  The  Church's  doctrinal  experience 
was  crystalized  in  the  creeds.  So,  then,  purely  pietistic 
Christians  develop  into  confessional  Christians  with  de- 
nominational interests.  This  can  be  observed,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  even  in  the  history  of  Methodism.  Its  be- 
ginning was  an  unbounded  spiritual  enthusiasm,  but  in 
the  course  of  time  it  became  an  independent  church,  and 
to-day  cultivates  with  great  zeal  its  peculiar  denomina- 
tional features,    There  was  a  marked  defect  in  Calixtus' 

40    Cf.  Dannhauer,  Mysterium  Syncretismi,  p.  45. 


101 

claim  of  an  internal  union,  particularly  when  we  view 
this  claim  on  the  background  of  his  special  interest, 
namely  of  blazing  the  trail  for  a  full  union  of  the 
churches.  For  it  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  while  Ca- 
lixtus,  for  the  time  being,  did  not  demand  more  than 
mutual  recognition,  toleration  and  co-operation,  his  aim 
was  a  complete  union.  The  conferences  at  Cassel  and 
Berlin  (see  chapter  III)  and  the  development  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  drew  the  consequences  from  the  theories 
of  Calixtus. 

4.     The  Question  of  Co-operation. 

The  question  of  co-operation  between  churches  of  dif- 
fering creeds  cannot  here  be  discussed  in  all  its  bearings. 
But  the  problem  can  be  made  practical  for  discussion  by 
two  statements:  (1)  There  can  be  co-operation  only 
where  such  co-operation  does  not  involve  a  practical  de- 
nial of  confessional  principles.  (2)  But  even  in  cases 
not  necessarily  involving  such  denial  a  practical  interest 
may  forbid  co-operation,  in  cases  namely  where  there 
would  be  reason  to  believe  that  by  force  of  circumstances 
it  would  be  productive  of  indifferentism  and  unionism 
with  regard  to  essentials.*' 

5.     Calixtus  Failed  to  Appreciate  the  Reformation. 

Calixtus  failed  to  appreciate  the  Reformation  as  a  cre- 
ative epoch  in  the  doctrinal  development  of  the  Church. 
Prof.  Tschackert,  himself  an  advocate  of  irenics  as  to 
the  relation  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed 
and  strongly  opposed  to  the  seventeenth  century  Luth- 
eranism  and  sympathetic  with  Calixtus,  writes  at  the  close 
of  his  article  on  "Georg  Calixt"  in  the  Realencyklopaedie : 
^*As  regards  his  irenics,  we  shall  acknowledge  and  highly 
appreciate  his  good  intention.     But  in  taking  the  posi- 

41  Cf.  Neve,  "Die  Galesburger  Regel,"  and  "Die  Kirchengeme- 
inschaftsfragc  und  dcr  Schriftbeweis." 


102 

tion  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  consensus  quinqua- 
saecularis  is  the  best  representation  of  Christianity  he 
proved  that  he  did  not  have  the  proper  appreciation  of 
the  religious  contents  of  the  Reformation.  Upon  the 
standpoint  of  Calixtus  the  historic  reformation  of  Luther 
loses  its  specific  value.  The  natural  consequence  was  in- 
differentism  towards  the  confessions  of  the  Church, 
which  evidenced  itself  in  the  conversion  of  Lutheran 
princes  and  princesses  to  Roman  Catholicism."*-  Ca- 
lixtus was  Lutheran  in  name,  but  he  ignored  the  historic 
foundation  of  his  church.  Dannhauer  remarked  cor- 
rectly that  in  following  Calixtus,  the  Lutheran  Church 
would  have  to  cease  praising  Luther  and  his  reformation 
and  apologize  for  the  schism  that  had  been  caused  in 
Protestantism.  Even  Baur*^  felt  constrained  to  remark, 
that  from  the  standpoint  of  Calixtus  and  in  consistency 
with  his  theories  the  Reformation  needed  not  to  have 
taken  place.  Characteristic  of  his  position  was  the  an- 
swer he  gave  to  prince  Anton  Ulrich  of  Brunswick,  who 
had  asked  him  whether  a  Protestant  princess  could 
marry  with  good  conscience  a  Roman  Catholic  king.  He 
answered  as  follows:  (1)  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
does  not  err  in  the  foundation  of  faith  and  in  the  matter 
of  salvation.  (2)  Consequently  the  changing  of  one's 
church  relationship  from  Protestantism  to  Roman  Ca- 
tholicism is  permissible.** 

6.     Humanism. 

The  humanistic  trait  in  Calixtus  had  much  to  do  with 
his  more  liberal  views  in  dealing  with  denominational 
problems.  Baur  also  made  the  remark  that  Calixtus  fa- 
vored a  development  from  the  purely  Christian  to  the 
generally  human  ("Er  lenkte  von  der  Religion  zu  dem 
allgemein  Menschlichen.")  Here,  perhaps,  was  the  real 
root  of  his  conflict  with  Lutheranism.     In  the  introduc- 


42  Third  edition  by  Hauck,  III,  p.  647,  3ofif. 

43  History  of  the  Christian  Church  IV. 

44  Meusel,  Kirchl.  Handlexikon  I,  634f.     Cf  Schmid,  pp.  200,  209. 


103 

tion  to  this  chapter  we  have  acknowledged  that  human- 
ism could  have  had  a  beneficial  influence  upon  the  seven- 
teenth century  Lutherans.  We  had  reference,  however, 
only  to  form,  method,  temper.  Humanism  makes  the 
theologian  freer,  more  scientific,  and  helps  him  to  draw 
lessons  from  history  and  psychology.  But  humanism 
also  inclines  to  a  criticism  of  the  foundations.  The  hand 
of  God  in  history  is  ignored.  The  Reformation  is  looked 
upon  as  a  misdevelopment.  Ad.  Harnack,  for  instance, 
views  the  history  of  dogma  as  issuing  in  the  dissolution 
of  dogmas.  The  significance  of  the  Reformation  is 
limited  to  a  negative  attitude  to  Rome.  The  differences 
between  the  Reformers  are  merely  theological  opinions. 
Augsburg  Confession,  Consensus  Tigurinus,  Formula  of 
Concord,  Synod  of  Dort,  Westminster  Confession  are  out- 
side of  the  history  of  the  dogma.  It  is  not  difficult  to  de- 
tect the  relation  between  such  views  of  modern  liberal- 
ism and  the  theories  of  Calixtus.  He  was  the  father  of 
modern  theology,  not  only  in  the  union  problem,  but  in 
numerous  other  respects.  His  principles  found  no  gen- 
eral following  until  after  his  time.  But  in  these  princi- 
ples we  have  the  beginning  of  the  many  and  various  sug- 
gestions for  a  new  construction  of  Christianity,  that  have 
been  heard  since  the  age  of  rationalism. 

IV.      THE  POLEMICAL  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  LUTHERANS. 

1.     The  Crmrge  of  Syncretism. 

Especially  since  the  colloquy  at  Thorn  (1645)  the  term 
"syncretism"  came  into  frequent  use  as  a  charge  against 
Calixtus  and  his  followers.  The  term  was  chosen  to  stig- 
matize the  endeavor  of  mixing  into  one  Church  the  op- 
posing confessions  of  faith.  The  term  was  derived  from 
(TvyKepdvvfiL,  to  mix  together.  In  preceding  ages  the  term 
had  had  a  different  meaning.  It  suggested  the  practice 
of  the  old  Cretans  of  whom  Plutarch  told  in  his  little 
writing  on  Philadelphia  that,  while  they  were  usually  at 
war  with  each  other,  they  always  united  against  a  com- 


104 

mon  foe.  It  was  in  this  sense  that  Zwingli,  Bucer  and 
Melanchthon  had  suggested  a  o-vyKp-qTiaixov  ^^  the  forma- 
tion of  a  united  front  against  Rome  even  if  a  full  doctri- 
nal union  could  not  be  realized.*^  But  in  the  seventeenth 
century  the  term  received  the  above  mentioned  meaning. 
The  polemics  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  was 
much  revived  about  the  time  of  the  Westphalian  Peace 
Treaty  of  1648.  The  Reformed,  through  their  chief  rep- 
resentative, Frederick  William  I,  of  Brandenburg,  de- 
manded to  be  put  on  a  basis  of  equality  with  the  Luth- 
erans by  being  acknowledged  as  adherents  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.*'"'  To  this,  electoral  Saxony  was  bit- 
terly opposed.  In  1645  the  Wittenberg  University  pub- 
lished two  theological  opinions  against  the  "Syncretis- 
mus  diversarum  religionum,"*^  referring  to  the  following 
passages  of  Scripture:  I  Cor.  6:15-15;  Rev.  3:15-16; 
Eph.  4:5-6.  Dannhauer,  in  his  "Mystery  of  a  discovered 
Syncretism"  (1648)  wrote  a  kind  of  history  of  Syncre- 
tism. Here  he  described  as  syncretism  any  kind  of  a 
mixture  of  truth  and  error,  tracing  it  in  the  relation  be- 
tween Eve  and  the  serpent,  between  the  sons  of  Jehovah 
and  the  daughters  of  men  (Gen.  6),  between  the  Israel- 
ites and  the  Egyptians  and  followed  it  up  to  Melanch- 
thon, Grotius  and  Calixtus.**  In  the  many  writings  of 
Abr.  Calovius,  finally,  the  term  came  to  have  exclusive 
reference  to  an  objectionable  approach  between  Luth- 
erans and  Reformed,  that  is  to  an  attempt  of  mixing  to- 
gether the  fundamentally  different  doctrines  of  these  two 
churches.  Paul  Gerhardt  wrote:  "They  want  us  to 
agree  to  a  syncretism  such  as  the  Rintelers  conceded  to 
the  Marburgers.     So  they  plan  gradually  to  dispose  our 

45  Zwinglii  0pp.  ed.  Schueler,  VII,  390;  VIII,  577-  Corp.  Ref. 
I,  917.  C.  Schmidt,  Melancththon,  p.  655.  Hering  Unionsver- 
suche  I,  64ff.,  283fif.  R.  E.  XIX,  240,  241,  16.  Meusel  VI,  529^- 
LutheranCyclopedia,  474. 

46  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta,  I,  i  book,  133-36.  Stahl,  Luth. 
Kirche  und  Union  470.  Meiern,  Westphal-Friedensverhandlun- 
gen  VI,  275.     R.  E.  XIX,  242ff.,  246,  28flf. 

47  R.  E.  XIX,  246,  15. 

48  R.  E.  XIX,  242,  27ff.     Schmid,  pp.  288-92. 


105 

people  to  embrace  the  Reformed  religion.*^  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Lutherans  against  such  an  undertaking  was 
so  strong  and  so  persistent  that  the  term  "Syncretist" 
(Suendechrist)  came  to  carry  with  itself  a  blame,  of 
which  no  one  wanted  to  be  guilty,  not  even  Calixtus  him- 
self.^" Paul  Gerhardt  wrote  in  his  last  will  and  testa- 
ment to  his  son :  "Be  earful  to  study  the  sacred  theology 
at  pure  schools  and  in  unadulterated  universities,  and 
beware  of  syncretists,  for  they  seek  the  things  of  this 
world  and  are  neither  true  to  God  or  man."^^ 

2.     Jena  Versus  Wittenberg. 

It  has  been  emphasized  again  and  again  that  Luther- 
anism  cannot  agree  to  a  clear  cut  separation  between  re- 
ligion and  theology,  especially  not  after  the  suggestions 
of  Calixtus.  But  it  has  also  been  indicated  that  the 
seventeenth  century  Lutherans  had  lost  themselves  in 
an  intellectualism  which  ignored  entirely  the  necessary 
distinction  between  confessional  substance  and  matters 
that  are  purely  theologumena.  Here  Wittenberg  had 
been  leading.  The  real  defect  in  the  position  of  the  Wit- 
tenberg University  came  into  light  in  an  abortive  con- 
fession, composed  and  proposed  by  Abr.  Calovius.  It 
was  his  "Consensus  Repetitus,"  etc.,  of  1664.^-  This  new 
symbol  against  syncretism  went  far  beyond  the  Formula 
of  Concord  in  rendering  decisions  on  theological  prob- 
lems. Following  the  order  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
we  have  in  eighty-eight  sections  always  first  the  true  doc- 
trine, introduced  by  a  profitemur ;  then  follows  with  a 
rejicimus  the  rejected  error;  finally  there  was  a  proof 
quotation  from  the  writings  of  the  Helmstedters  (Calix- 
tus, Hornejus,  Latermann,  Dreier).  Among  the  things 
rejected  as  downright  heresies  are  the  following:  that 

49  Langbecker,  Paul  Gerhardt,  23ff. 

50  Cf.  R.  E.  XIX,  242,  5off.,  246,  15. 

51  Langbecker,  p.  229;  cf.  Lutheran  Quarterly,  1907,  p.  376. 

52  As  to  full  title  and  related  matters  see  Schmid,  p.  367.     Meu- 
sel,  II,  20.    R.  E.  XIX,  248,  53ff-;  254,  Siff-     Schaff,  Creeds  I,  351. 


106 


the  article  of  the  Trinity  is  not  clearly  revealed  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  the  believers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment should  not  have  known  this  doctrine ;  that  the  Angel 
of  Jehovah  is  not  Christ ;  that  the  Old  Testament  believ- 
ers did  not  know  and  believe  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  per- 
son and  office;  that  even  outside  of  the  sacrament  Christ 
is  not  bodily  present  with  all  believers ;  that  Creatianism 
is  not  a  heresy;  that  the  existence  of  God  needs  not  be 
proved  by  theology;  that  newly  born  children  have  no 
real  faith ;  that  John  6  speaks  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  that 
Romanists  and  Calvinists  can  belong  to  the  true  Church ; 
that  they  can  have  a  hope  of  salvation  and  are  not  to  be 
condemned  to  eternal  death.  Consent  to  these  matters 
was  required  for  church  fellowship.  It  was  the  inten- 
tion to  place  the  Helmstedters  outside  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Calovius  published  one  work  after  the  other  to 
prepare  the  Church  for  an  adoption  of  his  symbol. 

But  Wittenberg  did  no  longer  truly  represent  the  Lu- 
theran Church.  John  Musaeus  with  the  faculty  of  the 
Jena  University  stepped  in  as  a  regulating  factor  and  did 
a  valuable  service  to  Lutheranism.  He  criticised  the 
Wittenberg  theologians  that  in  their  controversy  against 
Calixtus  they  had  not  sufficiently  distinguished  between 
necessary  articles  of  faith  and  matters  in  which  salve 
fide  et  caritate  there  may  be  disagreement.  He  de- 
manded the  recognition  of  "open  questions."  A  charac- 
teristic passage  may  here  be  quoted:  "In  the  detailed 
and  thorough  discussion  of  necessary  articles  of  faith,  in 
the  interpretation  of  difficult  passages  of  Scripture,  in 
the  dealing  with  philosophical  questions  relative  to  their 
bearing  upon  necessary  articles  of  faith,  in  the  method 
of  polemics  and  in  like  matters  even  orthodox  and  doc- 
trinally  pure  theologians  cannot  always  be  expected  to 
agree.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  men  at  high  schools, 
for  they  have  not  been  called  to  lecture  before  their  au- 
diences without  further  thought  of  what  they  have 
learned  of  their  teachers  or  read  of  other  theologians ; 
but  they  are  to  consider  carefully  special  difficulties  and 
should  aim  as  much  as  possible  to  elucidate  and  to  inter- 


107 


pret.  If  this  be  done,  then  it  cannot  be  otherwise  but 
that  sometimes  there  will  be  dissensions  in  the  manner 
of  teaching,  in  formulating  and  defending  the  doctrines 
of  faith,"  etc.  Estimating  the  theological  situation,  at- 
tention was  called  to  the  fact  that  in  matters  of  knowl- 
edge convictions  mature  gradually  and  that  frequently 
many  have  to  render  their  contribution  before  the  full 
truth  is  seen.  For  such  ventilation  of  thought  it  was 
said,  there  must  be  toleration  in  the  Church.  Progress 
should  not  be  barred  by  too  much  insistence  upon  con- 
formity in  detail.  The  Jena  theologians  were  far  from 
agreeing  with  Calixtus  in  his  manner  of  distinguishing 
between  fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals.  Here  they 
were  in  entire  harmony  with  Wittenberg.  To  the  honor 
even  of  seventeenth  century  Lutherans  it  can  be  reported 
that  the  Coiisensits  Repetitus  was  never  adopted.  The 
large  work  of  Calovius,  his  Historia  Syncretistica,  was 
also  practically  confiscated  by  the  government  of  Luth- 
eran Saxony  .^'^ 

3.     The  Severity  of  Polemics. 

The  severity  of  polemics  has  done  much  to  discredit 
the  cause  of  the  Lutherans  against  Calixtus.  The  Re- 
formed and  the  Calixtianians  were  by  no  means  innocent 
in  this  respect.^*  Yet  history  shows  it  to  be  a  fact  that 
the  polemics  of  the  Lutherans  was  very  severe.  It  had 
been  so  in  the  controversies  in  the  closing  decades  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  We  need  only  to  recall  a  figure  like 
Hesshusius.  A  like  spirit  can  be  seen  at  the  University 
of  Wittenberg  and  among  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  the 
seventeenth  century  in  general. 

53  R.  E.  XIX,  261,  5ff.  For  literature  on  the  whole  subject  see 
Schmid,  377fi.  Gass,  Georg  Calixtus,  112.  Tschackert  in  R.  E. 
XIX,  248,  46ff.  "Der  Jenischen  Theologen  ausfuehrlice  Erklae- 
rung,  (1677),  printed  in  Calovius,  Historia  Syncretistica  1685,  pp. 
loogfif.     Kunze  on  Musaeus  in  R.  E.  XIII,  576ff. 

54  Hering  II,  138,  71.  R.  E.  XIX,.  260,  sff.  Kawerau  ;  Moeller's 
Kirchengeschichte  III,  311;  at  numerous  places  in  Wangemann, 
Una  Sancta.  To  be  fair  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Re- 
formed had  less  occasion  for  bitter  polemics  than  had  the  Luth- 
erans, because  they  invaded  their  territory  and,  as  a  rule,  had  the 
princes  on  their  side,  who  protected  their  interests. 


108 

The  chief  explanation  is  to  be  sought  in  the  Lutheran 
Church's  valuation  of  doctrine.  To  Luther  and  his  co- 
laborers  pure  doctrine  was  the  foundation  and  the 
source  of  the  Christian  life.  And  it  was  their  conviction 
that  a  little  leaven  of  error  leaveneth  the  whole  lump. 
Therefore  they  watched  jealously  over  the  purity  of  doc- 
trine. This  is  the  attitude  of  historical  Lutheranism  of 
to-day.  But  in  judging  the  responsibility  of  the  indi- 
viduals as  members  of  other  churches  the  Lutherans  of 
to-day  do  not  speak  as  did  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
century  Lutherans.  Having  studied  the  history  of 
dogma  with  a  careful  regard  to  cause  and  effect  in  the 
dealing  of  the  human  mind  with  Scripture  truth,  present- 
day  Lutheran  theologians  have  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing that  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  there  should 
have  been  exponents  of  a  spiritualism  which  had  its  rep- 
resentatives all  through  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church.^^  The  old  Lutherans  could  see  in  the  departure 
of  Zwingli  and  Calvin  and  in  the  adherence  to  their  views 
by  their  followers  nothing  but  a  willful  rejection  of  plain 
truth.  Their  psychology  was  defective  as  we  have  tried 
to  point  out  (see  above  in  this  chapter,  III,  1,  c) . 

The  seventeenth  century  Lutherans  looked  upon  Cal- 
vinism as  their  real  foe.  This  may  have  its  explanation 
to  some  extent  in  the  aggressive  policy  of  the  Reformed 
against  the  Lutherans  (cf.  pp.  25-28;  36-40;  especially 
51-52) ,  and  in  the  methods  of  their  propaganda,  but  the 
chief  explanation  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  looked  upon 
Calvinism  as  the  embodiment  of  exceptionally  dangerous 
errors,  particularly  regarding  the  means  of  grace.  Hoe 
von  Hoenegg,  court  preacher  at  Dresden,  advised  his  elec- 
tor to  make  common  cause  with  the  Roman  Catholic  em- 
peror before  giving  assistance  to  the  Reformed  prince  of 
the  Palatinate.  Polykarp  Leyser  declared  in  a  special 
publication  that  the  Lutherans  would  sooner  co-operate 

55  As  Luther  chose  to  follow  the  Scriptural  realism  and  mys- 
ticism of  an  Irenaeus  and  related  theologians,  so  Zwingli,  Bul- 
linger,  Bucer  and  Calvin  followed  the  spiritualism  of  Origen  and 
Berengar  with  its  emphasis  upon  what  appears  rational. 


109 


with  the  Romanists  than  with  the  Reformed.^^  Great 
absurdities  were  natural  in  that  age.  For  instance,  a 
man  like  Hoenegg  could  publish  a  book  under  the  title: 
"Evident  Proof  that  in  Ninety-nine  Points  the  Calvin- 
ists  Are  in  Agreement  with  the  Arians  and  Turks."  One 
would  think  that  such  voices  could  be  nothing  but  erup- 
tions of  utterly  dried  up  theologians,  but  then  we  read 
that  men  of  deepest  personal  piety,  such  as  Ph.  Nicolai^ 
the  singer  of  "Wachet  auf,  ruft  uns  die  Stimme,"  E.  Neu-^ 
meister,  author  of  "Jesus  nimmt  die  Suender  an"  and 
even  Paul  Gerhardt,  the  nightingale  of  German  Protes- 
tantism, expressed  themselves  in  hardest  terms  against 
the  Reformed,  even  questioning  their  chances  for  salva- 
tion." 

After  the  works  of  Tholuck^*  it  came  to  be  the  general 
opinion  that  Calovius,  Dannhauer,  Huelsemann  et  al.  had 
been  questionable  characters,  utterly  devoid  of  spiritual 
life.  But  now  we  find  that  the  3rd  edition  of  the  R.  E. 
presents  an  altogether  different  appreciation  of  these 
men.  J.  Kunze,  in  his  article  on  Abr.  Calovius,  remarks : 
"Tholuck's  judgment  betrays  the  narrow  position  of  the 
pietistic-unionistic  school. "^^  Those  men  were  men  of 
their  age,  of  course.  The  spirit  of  their  polemics  cannot 
be  commended  and  would  be  impossible  to-day.  It  bears 
the  stamp  of  the  demoralization  characteristic  to  an  age 
that  was  passing  through  the  Thirty  Year's  War.  But 
the  remark  of  Tschackert  is  correct  when  he  says  of 
those  theologians:  "In  the  rough  hull  of  their  ortho- 
doxy they  preserved  the  religious  contents  of  the  Refor- 
mation and  handed  it  to  posterity."^" 

56  Hering,  Unionsversuche  I,  265. 

57  See  Kahnis,  Der  Innere  Gang  des  deutschen  Protestantis- 
mus  I,  83.     Hering  II,  35ofT.     Langbecker,  Paul  Gerhardt. 

58  "Geist  der  luth.  Theologen  Wittenbergs,"  1852;  "Das  kirchl. 
Leben  des  Siebzehnten  Jahrhunderts,"  1861 ;  his  articles  in  the  sec- 
ond edition  of  the  Realencyklopaedie. 

59  R.  E.  Ill,  653,  24.     Cf.  Meusel. 

60  R.  E.  Ill,  647,  28.  Cf.  Kirn  on  Melanchthon  in  R.  E.  XII. 
537,  Iff. 


110 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  PRUSSIAN  CHURCH  UNION. 

Literature:  Rudelbach,  JEleformation,  Luthertum  und 
Union,  pp.  608ff.  Stahl,  Lutherische  Kirche  und  Union, 
pp.  468ff.  Wa7igemann,  Sieben  Buecher  Preussischer 
Kirchengeschichte,  1859.  Again  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta, 
1884.  (Kirchliche  Kabinettspolitik,  vol.  II,  book  3; 
Drei  Preussische  Dragonaden,  II,  book  2;  Die  Preus- 
sische  Union  in  ihrem  Verhaeltnis  zur  Una  Sancta, 
vol.  I,  book  6).  Brandes,  Geschichte  der  kirchlichen 
Politik  des  Hauses  Brandenburg  I,  382ff.  Scheibel, 
Aktenmaessige  Geschichte  der  neuesten  Untemehmung 
einer  Union,  1834.  Jtd.  Mueller,  Die  Evangelische 
Union,  1845.  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch  der  Evange- 
lischen  Union,  1853.  W.  Hoffmann,  Deutschland  Einst 
und  Jetzt  im  Lichte  des  Reiches  Gottes,  1868.  Rieker, 
Die  Rechtliche  Stellung  der  Evangelischen  Kirche  in 
Deutschland.  Kurtz,  Church  History  (Engl.  1888), 
§193,  3.  (German  ed.  1906,  §180,  1).  J.  Gensichen, 
Penkschrift  zum  SOjaehr.  Jubilaeum  der  Lutherischen 
Vereine,  1899.  Denkschrift  des  Evangelischen  Ober- 
kichenrats  (at  its  fiftieth  anniversary),  1900.  Ameri- 
can Lutheran  Survey,  June  5,  1918.  Beyschlag,  Deutsch- 
Evangelische  Blaetter,  1900.  The  following  articles  in 
Hauck,  Realencyklopaedie  (R.  E.)  have  been  used:  "Cor- 
pus Evangelicorum"  by  Friedberg  (IV,  298ff.)  ;  "Synkre- 
tistische  Streitigkeiten"  by  Tschackert  (XIX,  243ff)  ; 
"Pfaff"  by  Preuschen  (XV,  234ff.)  ;  "Union"  by  Hauck 
(XX,  253ff.)  ;  "Separierte  Lutheraner"  by  Froboess 
(XXI,  Iff.)  ;  "Scheibel"  by  Froeboess  (XVII,  547ff.) ; 
"W.  Hoffmann"  by  Koegel  (VIII,  227f.)  ;  "Katechismen" 
by  Chors  (X,  130ff.)     Meusel,  Kirchliches  Handlexikon 


Ill 


on  "Union"  (VII,  4ff.)  ;  "Wangemann"  (VII,  170)  ;  "Lu- 
therischer  Verein"  (VII,  379ff.).  "Lutheran  Cyclope- 
dia" (Jacobs  and  Haas)  on  "Prussian  Union"  by  Mohl- 
denke  (pp.  525f.)  ;  on  "Grabau"  (p.  203). 

In  chapters  I,  III,  and  IV,  we  have  made  ourselves 
witnesses  of  many  and  persisting  efforts  to  bring  about  a 
union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed.  Not  a  stone 
was  left  unturned  in  these  endeavors.  As  a  brief  review 
we  refer  to  Bucer  with  his  inexhaustible  optimism  and  di- 
plomacy (p.  7ff.)  ;  to  Luther  as  he  for  a  number  of  years 
literally  forced  himself  into  an  attitude  of  persevering 
irenics  in  order  to  remove  the  schism  (p.  12ff.)  ;  to  Me- 
lanchthon  with  his  mediating  formulas  (p.  40ff.)  ;  to  the 
various  proposals  for  a  union  by  the  Reformed  (p.  55ff.)  ; 
to  the  literary  activity  of  George  Calixtus  (chapter  IV)  ; 
to  the  life  work  of  John  Dury  (p.  77ff.)  ;  to  the  Leipzig 
Conference  of  1631  (p.  56ff.)  But  all  these  efforts  did 
not  bring  the  Union.  It  became  evident  the  longer  the 
more  that  the  historically  developed  division  could  not  be 
overcome.  The  two  churches,  each  established  upon  dif- 
ferent principles,  had  created  their  own  theology  and 
their  own  life.     (See  our  remarks  on  page  61f.)* 

What  had  been  found  to  be  impossible  in  the  time  of 
these  movements  seemed  to  become  a  reality  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  when  in  1817  the  Prussian  Church  Union 
was  proclaimed.  The  historical  development  of  this 
Union,  however,  revealed  the  fact  that  even  in  this  move- 
ment a  real  union  of  the  two  churches  of  Protestantism 
had  not  been  found ;  that  it  was  only  a  mechanical  union, 
or  a  confederation  of  a  Lutheran  and  a  Reformed  Church 
under  a  state  church  government.  Related  movements 
in  other  dominions  of  Germany  show  more  of  an  ap- 
proach to  the  absorptive  union,  but  that  was  because 
there  the  historical  Lutheran  Church  had  already  been 
pressed  out  of  existence  in  a  preceding  age  as  was  re- 
lated, p.  36fr. 

*The  quotation  of  these  pages  has  reference  to  the  separate 
publication  of  this  series  of  articles,  which  will  appear  after  a 
seventh  chapter  has  been  printed. 


112 


I.   PREPARATORY  DEVELOPMENT  FOR  THE  PRUSSIAN  CHURCH 

UNION. 

Broadly  speaking  we  may  say  that  the  Prussian  Church 
Union  was  chiefly  the  result  of  three  factors:  (1)  the 
change  of  thought  that  came  with  the  age  of  rationalism ; 
(2)  the  passing  sentiment  of  a  revived  pietism;  and  (3) 
the  state  church  policy  of  the  Hohenzollerns,  which  was 
the  organizing  factor. 

Elector  Sigismund,  after  his  conversion  to  the  Re- 
formed Church  (1613),  had  tried  to  make  his  Lutheran 
subjects  mildly  Reformed.  In  this  he  had  failed  (p. 
38ff. ;  cf.  70ff.)  But  his  successors  followed  the  policy 
of  equalizing  the  confessional  and  practical  differences 
of  the  two  churches  through  all  kinds  of  union  measures. 
We  refer  especially  to  Elector  Frederick  William  I  and 
his  conflict  with  Paul  Gerhardt  (p.  Tiff.)  The  first 
kings  of  Prussia  were  active  in  the  same  direction.^' 
Prussia  was  aspiring  to  the  protectorate  and  leadership 
of  German  Protestantism  and  to  take  the  place  which 
Saxony  had  held  in  the  Corpus  Evangelicorum.-  In  1701 
the  son  of  Elector  Frederick  William  I  was  crowned  at 
Koenigsberg  as  Frederick  I,  the  first  king  of  Prussia. 
The  Hohenzollerns  were  fast  approaching  the  time  when 
their  aspiration  to  the  national  and  political  leadership 
in  Germany  was  no  longer  a  dream.  A  united  Protest- 
antism was  an  important  factor  in  welding  the  many 
States  of  Germany  into  a  united  empire.  Propositions 
for  a  Protestant  Union  were  part  of  the  policy  of  Prus- 
sia's first  king.''  The  view  of  the  Hohenzollerns  w^ 
upon  a  union  of  German  Protestantism  in  and  outside  of 
Prussia.  Even  as  early  as  the  years  following  1717,  the 
second  centennial  of  the  Reformation,  the  second  king  of 


1  Stahl,  Luth.  Kirche  und  Union,  p.  472. 

2  See  Friedberg  in  R.  E.  IV,  299,  23,  38.  Cf.  Tschackert  in  R.  E. 
XIX,  246,  28-45.    American  Lutheran  Survey,  June  5,  1918,  p.  202. 

3  Cf.  F.  Brandes,  Geschichte  der  kirchlichen  Politik  des  HauSes 
Brandenburg  I,  383flf.  See  also  the  very  interesting  remarks  ol 
Hauck  in  R.  E.  XX,  256,  43-46.  Cf.  Tschackert  in  R.  E.  XIX,  Z^ 
35ff. 


113 


Prussia,  Frederick  William  I  (father  of  Frederick  the 
Great)  would  have  liked  to  consummate  the  union  of  the 
two  churches.  His  helping  hand  was  Count  Metternich, 
who  drew  up  fifteen  points  as  a  basis  for  the  union.*  He 
was  supported  by  C.M.Pfaff  at  the  Tuebingen  University, 
whose  appeal  for  a  union  in  1720  ("Friedfertige  An- 
rede,"  etc.),  attracted  considerable  attention.^  Even  the 
Corpus  Evangelicorum  with  its  seat  in  Regensburg,  the 
highest  authority  in  church  matters  touching  the  inter- 
ests of  all  the  Protestant  states,  was  in  favor  of  it.  Leib- 
niz had  given  out  the  word  that  Luther  and  Calvin  both 
were  right;  Luther's  Real  Presence,  he  said,  has  its  re- 
ality in  the  spiritual  power  proceding  from  the  Body  of 
Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  According  to  this  in- 
terpretation Calvin  had  the  correct  definition.  But  noth- 
ing came  of  the  endeavors  at  this  time.  The  Lutheran 
ciergy  were  generally  opposed  to  the  union.°  The  book 
of  E.  S.  Cyprian,  "Abgedrungener  Untericht  von  kirch- 
licher  Vereinigung,"  etc.,  1722,  is  of  special  interest  here. 
His  warning  reminds  us  of  the  protest  of  Claus  Harms 
little  less  than  a  century  later.'  Cyprian  wrote  under 
the  protection  of  Prince  Frederick  H  of  Weimar-Meinin- 
gen,  who  befriended  him.  The  king  of  Prussia  de- 
manded that  his  voice  be  silenced.  Frederick  William 
III,  under  whom  finally  (1817)  the  Union  was  pro- 
claimed, began  to  work  for  that  end  at  an  early  time  of 
his  reign.  In  the  outgoing  decade  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, at  the  appeal  of  his  court  preacher  Dr.  Sack  (in  his 
**Promemoria"  of  1798),  he  appointed  a  commission  for 
the  creation  of  a  common  liturgJ^  The  French  revolu- 
tion and  the  Napoleonic  wars  then  absorbed  the  interest 
ao  that  nothing  was  done  for  a  number  of  years. 

The  Hohenzollerns  were  favored  in  their  union  policy 
by  the  spirit  of  the  age,  which  changed  fundamentally 
wjien  the  storm  of  rationalism  made  tabula  rasa  with  the 

4  R.  E.  IV,  366,  31. 

5  See  Preuschen  in  R.  E.  XV,  236,  34flF. 

6  Hauck  in  R.  E.  XX,  255,  16. 

7  See  R.  E.  IV,  366,  20,  soff. 


114 

faith  of  the  Church.  True,  the  supernaturaHsts  emerged. 
But  most  of  these  could  not  sufficiently  rid  themselves  of 
rationalistic  influences.  To  this  class  belonged  also  Dr. 
Sack  as  can  be  seen  from  his  "Promemoria."*  Provost 
Teller,  of  Berlin,  a  member  of  the  king's  commission,  was 
an  outright  rationalist.  He  declared  publicly:  "Because 
of  their  faith  in  God,  virtue  and  immortality,  the  Jews 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  genuine  Christians. "*'  The  gen- 
eral literature  was  pervaded  by  a  spirit  of  Hellenism  and 
heathenism,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  writings  of  Goethe, 
Schiller  and  others  of  the  German  classics.  Kant  was  a 
great  thinker,  but  with  all  his  emphasis  upon  conscience 
and  moralism  he  ignored  the  essentials  of  religion.  In 
such  a  time  appreciation  of  the  Church's  confessions 
could  not  be  expected.  Schleiermacher,  in  his  writing  of 
1804,'"  regarded  the  confessional  division  of  Protestant- 
ism as  a  result  of  the  stubbornness  of  the  Reformers  and 
as  an  outright  misdevelopment  of  history.  Certainly, 
the  union  of  these  "sister  churches"  at  least  seemed  nat- 
ural in  an  age  when  the  thought  of  the  cultured  was 
upon  a  world-religion  based  upon  the  belief  in  God,  vir- 
tue and  immortality.'^ 

We  are  told  that  the  Christians,  the  pietists  of  that 
day,  were  the  supporters  of  the  union  idea.  This  is  true. 
But  their  influence,  at  first,  was  not  strong,  and  there- 
fore they  did  not  originate  the  movement.  They  existed 
as  "die  Stillen  im  Lande."  They  represented  the  faith 
of  individuals,  which  under  the  devastations  of  rational- 
ism had  sought  refuge  in  the  heart.'-  This  faith  of  in- 
dividuals— such  as  Gerhard  Tersteegen,  for  instance — 
had  lost  sight  of  congregation  and  Church.  They  were 
souls  like  Mary  whose  interest  was  centered  solely  upon 

8  Printed  by  Wangemann  in  his  "Sieben  Buecher  preussischer 
Kirchengeschichte"  I,  pp.  i-8. 

9  Kurtz,  Church  History,  Engl,  ed.,  i888,  §171,  4- 

10  "Zwei  unvorgreifliche  Gutachten  in  Sachen  des  protestanti- 
schen  Kirchenwesens,  zunaechst  in  Beziehung  auf  den  preussis- 
chen  Staat." 

11  Cf.  Hauck,  R.  E.  XX,  p.  254,  5off. 

12  Rudelbach,  Reformation,  Luthertum  und  Union,  p.  615:  "Dcr 
Glaube  fluechtete  sich  in  die  Herzen  der  einzelnen  Bekeaner." 


115 

"the  one  thing  that  is  needful."^^'  True,  after  the  tribu- 
lation of  the  Napoleonic  wars  many  of  the  cultured  also 
found  their  way  back  to  a  positive  faith  in  a  living  per- 
sonal God  and  in  Christ  as  the  mediator  for  man's  Sal- 
vation. This  growing  revival  was  at  first  in  no  wise 
confessional  in  character,  but  purely  Biblical.  The 
Christians  of  all  churches,  including  the  Roman  Catholic, 
joined  hands  as  if  they  were  one  communion  of  believers. 
But  the  mistake  of  those  that  advocated  the  Union  on  the 
basis  of  this  religious  enthusiasm  consisted  in  this,  that 
they  regarded  a  merely  passing  sentiment  for  union  as 
something  permanent.  Very  soon  the  time  came  when 
these  Biblicists  or  new  pietists  felt  the  need  of  linking  up 
their  religious  experiences  with  the  confessional  experi- 
ence of  the  historic  Church.^*  Then  it  was  found  that 
confessional  convictions  after  all  have  their  rightful  place 
in  the  life  of  the  Church.  For  an  interesting  parallel  in 
history  we  refer  to  the  period  of  the  so-called  "American 
Lutheranism"  in  our  own  country.  It  was  pietistic  and 
it  distrusted  the  historic  development  of  the  Church  with 
its  confessions.  Dr.  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth  re- 
marks :  "It  mistook  a  tendency  half  developed  for  a  final 
result."^  ^  Both  the  rationalistic  and  the  pietistic  factor 
combined  to  aid  the  king  in  his  gradually  developing  plan 
to  consummate  the  Union  at  the  coming  three-hundredth 
anniversary  of  the  Reformation. 

Preparatory  in  nature  was  also  a  step  that  was  taken 
in  1808  when  the  king  dissolved  the  upper-consistory  to- 
gether with  the  provincial  consistory  (both  creations  of 
Frederick  the  Great  in  1750)  and  the  government  of  the 
Church  was  taken  over  by  a  department  of  the  State 
(Kultusministerium).  So  the  king  who  was  the  head  of 
this  department  became  the  highest  bishop  of  the  church 
{summus  episcopics) .  This  was  the  final  legalization  of 
a  condition  of  caesareopapism  under  which  Lutheranism 

13  Cf.  Stahl,  p.  473. 

14  Hauck,  R.  E.  XX,  p.  256,  10;  p.  255,  iff. 

15  Spaeth,  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth  II,  p.  85.  Cf.  Neve,  Brief 
History  of  the  Lath.  Church  in  America,  2nd  ed.,  p.  128. 


116 

has  suffered  unspeakably.  The  pope  in  Rome  had  never 
more  power  over  his  church  than  was  now  vested  in  the 
hands  of  the  Reformed  king  of  Prussia  as  bishop  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  his  domain. 

King  Frederick  William  III  was  a  man  of  personal 
piety,  with  a  personal  interest  in  the  Church,  and  it 
should  not  be  left  unstated  that  in  the  Union  which  he 
proclaimed  in  1817  he  meant  to  promote  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  his  people.  But  that  the  political  motive  was 
not  a  secondary  consideration  can  easily  be  seen  in  the 
historical  perspective.  The  Vienna  Congress  in  1815 
had  been  engaged  in  a  reconstruction  of  Europe  leaving 
a  strong  Prussia  with  Westphalia,  the  Rhine  Province, 
the  Province  of  Saxony,  Posen  and  the  Island  of  Ruegen 
as  new  accessions  while  all  the  thirty-eight  German 
States  had  united  into  a  German  federation.  Now  the  de- 
sire for  a  union  of  German  Protestantism  was  stronger 
than  ever  before.  Hauck  in  his  article  on  the  "Union" 
in  R.  E.  has  a  very  characteristic  remark  when  he  says 
that  in  cultivating  the  Union  idea  it  was  one  of  the  ob- 
jects of  the  State  "to  gather  up  the  strength  of  Protest- 
antism in  the  empire."'^  German  Protestantism  was  to 
be  used  for  political  purposes. 

II.      THE    PROCLAMATION    OF    THE    UNION    AND    THE    FIRST 
STAGE  OF  ITS  DEVELOPMENT. 

In  that  historical  proclamation  of  the  Union  at  the 
third  anniversary  of  the  Reformation  in  1817  the  king 
declared  in  his  famous  decree  (Kabinettsordre)  that  the 
Reformed  Church  was  not  to  become  Lutheran,  nor  the 
Lutheran  to  become  Reformed,  but  that  both  were  to  con- 


i6  R.  E.  XX,  p.  256,  45:  "Der  Wunsch,  die  religioese  Spaltung 
ihrer  Untertanen  zu  beseitigen,  die  Kraft  der  Evangelischen  im 
Reiche  zusammenzufassen  ,machte  die  Hohenzollern  zu  Traegern 
und  Foerderern  der  Idee  der  Union.  Cf.  Hoffmann,  the  most  influ- 
ential man  in  the  Evang.  Oberkirchenrat  from  1852  to  1873,  in  his 
book  "Deutschland  Einst  und  Jetzt  im  Lichte  des  Reiches  Glottes." 
p.  494- 


117 

stitute  "a  renewed  Evangelical  Christian  Church."  The 
confessional  basis  of  this  church  was  to  be  "the  principal 
points  in  Christianity,  wherein  both  churches  agree" 
(consensus)  ;  the  doctrines  of  disagreement,  on  the  other 
hand  (dissensus)  were  to  be  considered  as  "non-essen- 
tial" and  to  be  left  to  the  private  conviction  and  liberty  of 
the  individual ;  in  other  words,  they  were  to  be  eliminated 
from  the  Church  as  such  J  ^  We  see,  it  was  a  real  absorp- 
tive union  that  the  king  was  planning.  The  object  of 
his  creation  was  to  be  an  "Evangelical  Christian  Church" 
on  the  basis  of  a  distinction  between  fundamentals  and 
non-fundamentals,  or  between  faith  and  theology,  much 
after  the  suggestion  of  George  Calixtus  as  reviewed  in 
chapter  IV. 

The  following  measures  constituted  the  program  for 
the  introduction  of  the  Union  as  it  was  first  contemplated 
by  the  king:  (1)  Both  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed 
were  placed  under  one  and  the  same  church  government. 
This,  however,  had  been  done  already  in  the  year  of 
1808,  as  has  been  reported.  (2)  The  common  order  of 
service  (Agenda),  adapted  to  Lutherans  and  Reformed 
alike,  the  main  work  of  which  had  been  done  by  the  king 
himself,  was  forced  upon  all  congregations.  In  this  or- 
der of  service,  it  is  true,  large  concessions  had  been  made 
to  the  Lutheran  liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century,  but  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  the  Lutheran  teaching 
was  not  expressed  and  open  communion  was  expected. 
(3)  By  the  decree  of  1823  the  subscription  to  the  Un^l- 
tered  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Formula  of  Concord 
was  nullified  and  ministers  were  called  upon  to  subscribe 
only  to  the  "confessional  writings  of  the  United  Evan- 
gelical Church  in  so  far  as  they  agree  with  each  other." 
Later,  subscription  was  made  to  "the  Confessions  of  our 


17  See  the  full  text  of  the  decree  in  Wangemann,  "Kirchliche 
Kabinets-Politik"  in  Una  Sancta  II,  2nd  book,  pp.  249(1.  Stahl,  p. 
475;  Rudelbach,  p.  619.  Meusel,  Kirchl.  Handlexikon  VII,  p.  6 
Lutheran  Cyclopedia,  p.  526.     Hauck  in  R.  E.  XX,  256,  56. 


118 

Evangelical  Church."  Still  later,  in  response  to  demands 
of  the  Lutherans,  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530  was 
mentioned  when  ordination  took  place  in  a  Lutheran  con- 
gregation. This  latter  arrangement,  however,  marks 
the  change  from  an  absorptive  to  a  confederative  union, 
of  which  we  shall  treat  in  the  next  section.  (4)  In  the 
year  1822  it  was  declared  that  those  candidates  for  the 
ministry  who  should  subscribe  to  the  so-called  "Unions- 
revers"  (a  written  promise,  at  their  examination,  to  sub- 
mit to  the  Union  arrangements),  were  to  receive  ap- 
pointment with  Lutheran  as  well  as  Reformed  congrega- 
tions. Later,  1830,  without  considering  such  a  written 
"Revers,"  it  was  determined  that  pastorates  of  the  State 
Church  should  be  supplied  with  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
pastors  indiscriminately,  provided  that  the  congregations 
would  not  raise  objection.  (5)  In  the  city  of  Bonn  a 
theological  faculty  was  constituted  on  the  Union  princi- 
ple. (6)  The  organization  of  "mixed  congregations 
which  would  constitute  themselves  on  the  consensus  of 
the  confessions  of  both  churches"  was  everywhere  en- 
couraged. (7)  The  "General-Superintendents"  and  the 
"Sui>erintendents"  received  instructions  to  see  to  it  that 
the  congregations  would  give  up  their  distinguishing 
names,  "Lutherans"  and  "Reformed,"  and  simply  call 
themselves  "Evangelisch."  (8)  The  breaking  of  the 
bread  at  the  communion  was  made  the  outward  sign  of 
having  adopted  the  Union. ^^ 

At  first,  it  seemed  that  there  was  general  approval,  or, 
at  least,  no  opposition  to  the  Union.  The  indefiniteness 
and  abstract  character  of  the  king's  decree  appealed  to 
the  spirit  of  the  age.  The  ministers  of  Berlin,  Lutheran 
and  Reformed,  responded  by  assembling  in  a  Lutheran 
church  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  under  the  symbol  of 
breaking  the  bread  and  by  using  the  words :  "Christ,  our 

i8     Cf.  Stalil  pp.  478f.     Metisel  VII,  p.  6. 


119 

Lord,  said :  Take  and  eat,"  etc.^»  The  theological  faculty 
of  the  university  met  in  a  Reformed  church  and  received 
the  communion  in  the  same  manner.  In  both  cases  the 
congregations  had  not  been  invited.  Schleiermacher,  as 
president  of  the  Berlin  Synod,  published  an  official  ex- 
planation in  which  he  stated  that  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  had  been  intended  as  an  expression  of  a 
church-fellowship  without  a  doctrinal  union,  and  he  pre- 
dicted that  the  higher  life  in  this  new  relation  would 
manifest  itself  in  a  stronger  emphasis  upon  the  distin- 
guishing doctrines.2°  This  was  certainly  a  strange  ex- 
pectation as  coming  from  an  advocate  of  the  Union  such 
as  Schleiermacher.  It  did  come  true,  however,  later  un- 
der a  strong  Lutheran  reaction  of  which  we  shall  hear  in 
the  following  section.  But  then  it  was  to  be  crushed  by 
the  Union  authorities.  One  reason,  perhaps,  why  there 
was  no  noticeable  opposition  at  this  time  was  that  with 
the  proclamation  in  1817  the  assurance  was  given  that  no 
congregation  should  be  forced  to  join  the  Union.  At 
first,  the  congregations  remained  unmolested.  Even  the 
common  service  book  (Agenda)  was  at  first  only  recom- 
mended. Trouble  came  as  soon  as  this  order  of  service, 
the  symbol  of  the  Union,  was  made  obligatory  for  all  con- 
gregations. 

A  number  of  other  principalities  and  several  cities  fol- 
lowed Prussia  in  introducing  the  Union.  They  were  the 
Palatinate  on  the  Rhine,  Grand  Duchy  of  Hesse,  Anhalt, 
Waldeck,  Baden,  Hanau,  Fulda,  Bernburg,  Dessau,  Koe- 
then.  In  each  case  the  preparatory  work  had  been  done 
by  the  princes  with  the  aid  of  Melanchthonian  formulas 
and  as  a  rule  with  the  Variata  (cf.  p.  42f.) 

19  This  merely  reciting  form  of  distribution,  which  was  to  sug- 
gest to  the  communicant  the  liberty  of  interpreting  Christ's  words 
as  he  pleases,  was  recommended  by  Prof.  Marheinecke  in  a  little 
writing:  "Das  Brot  im  heiligen  Abendmahl."  It  became  the  shib- 
boleth of  the  Union,  to  which  the  Lutherans  later  opposed,  as  a 
public  profession,  the  words  :  "This  is  the  true  Body,"  etc.  The 
English  Lutheran  Church  of  America,  with  a  history  different 
from  that  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany  has  not  followed 
that  practice,  but  uses  the  words  :  "This  is  the  Body  of  Christ," 
etc. 

20  Cf.  Rudelbach,  pp.  622f. 


120 

III.      THE  REACTION. 

Generally  speaking,  there  was  no  confessional  consci- 
ousness when  the  Union  was  announced.  Yet  a  few 
voices  were  heard  from  outside  of  Prussia.  At  Leipzig, 
Prof.  J.  A.  Tittmann  replied  to  Schleiermacher  (1818) 
predicting  that  nothing  good  would  come  out  of  the 
Union. ^^  A  very  strong  testimony  came  from  Pastor 
Glaus  Harms  in  Kiel  in  his  famous  "Ninety-five  Theses" 
which  he  published  for  the  third  anniversary  of  the  Re- 
formation. In  the  seventy-fifth  of  these  he  declared  pro- 
phetically: "Through  a  marriage  the  poor  maid,  the 
Lutheran  Church,  is  to  be  made  rich.  Do  not  perform 
this  ceremony  over  the  bones  of  Luther.  They  will  be- 
come alive,  and  then  woe  unto  you !"  This  prophesy  soon 
saw  its  fulfillment. 

The  tercentenary  anniversary  of  the  delivery  of  Augs- 
burg Confession  (25th  of  June,  1830)  was  approaching. 
King  Frederick  William  III  was  planning  to  make  this  an- 
niversarj'^  the  occasion  for  a  large  forward  step  in  the  in- 
troduction of  the  Union. -2  The  obligatory  use  of  the 
Agenda  had  already  been  ordered.  In  a  special  decree 
of  April  30,  1830,  the  king  demanded  that  the  church  au- 
thorities should  see  to  it  that  as  a  symbolic  expression  of 
joining  the  Union  the  rite  of  breaking  the  bread  in  the 
communion  be  introduced  and  that  the  designation  of  the 
two  churches  as  "Lutheran"  or  "Reformed"  be  aban- 
doned.-^ On  the  basis  of  this  decree  the  General  Super- 
intendent in  Breslau  (capital  of  Silesia)  recommended  to 
the  clergy  of  his  district  that  on  the  anniversary  of  the 
delivery  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  the  communion  be 
received  in  accordance  with  the  decree  of  the  king.^* 
Scheibel,  professor  at  the  University  of  Breslau,  and  pas- 

21  See  Rudelbach,  p.  624. 

22  See  Froboess  in  R.  E.  XII,  p.  2,  5off. 

23  See    the    text    of    the    decree    in    Wangemann,    "Preussische 
Kabinets-Politik,"  in  Una  Sancta  II,  book  2,  p.  311,  cf.  p.  313. 

24  Froboess,  R.  E.  XII,  p.  2,  53ff. 


121 


tor  at  the  Elizabeth  Church  in  that  city,^^  who  had  al- 
ready written  against  the  Union,-"  protested  for  himself 
and  a  part  of  his  congregation  and  even  appealed  to  the 
king.  But  his  petition  was  refused,  and  he,  together 
with  another  minister,  was  temporarily  suspended  from 
office.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a  separatistic  Luth- 
eran movement  which  in  the  end  resulted  in  an  independ- 
ent Lutheran  Church  in  Prussia.  Several  hundred  mem- 
bers of  the  congregation  rallied  about  Scheibel,  among 
them  Prof.  Steffens,  the  rector  of  the  university,  and 
Huschke,  a  professor  of  jurisprudence  who  was  at  home 
in  the  problems  of  theology  as  he  was  in  the  science  of 
law.-'  Petition  after  petition  was  sent  to  Berlin.  By 
the  end  of  August,  the  followers  of  Scheibel  had  increased 
to  over  one  thousand.  They  refused  the  king's  Agenda 
which,  to  them,  was  in  a  special  sense  the  symbol  of  the 
Union.  The  demand  was  for  an  independent  Lutheran 
Church  in  which  ministers  and  congregations  could  live 
and  testify  according  to  the  confessions  of  this  church.-^ 
But  all  petitions  were  in  vain.  Meanwhile  the  movement 
spread  into  the  neighboring  provinces.  Missionaries  of  a 
revived  Lutheranism  visited  the  congregations  in  Silesia, 
Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Pommerania  and  Posen,  and  en- 
lightened the  congregations  through  speech  and  writings 
regarding  the  difference  between  the  Lutheran  Church 
and  the  Union.  Many  were  prosecuted  and  suffered  im^- 
prisonment  and  fine,  but  such  martyrdom  brought  fresh 
fuel  to  the  awakened  Lutheran  consciousness.-^  Schei- 
bel, removed  from  his  offices  in  the  church  and  in  the  uni- 
versity and  forbidden  to  preach  and  to  write,  soon  (1832) 
retired  from  Breslau  and  took  his  abode  in  Dresden,  the 

25  For  a  characterization  of  Scheibel  see  R.  E.  XVII,  p.  551,  2off. 

26  R.  E.  XVII,  p.  349,  loff. 

2."]  Prof.  Julius  Stahl  in  Berlin,  whose  great  work  "Die  Luther- 
ische  Kirche  und  die  Union"  we  have  frequently  quoted,  was  an- 
other man  who  combined  the  study  of  theology  with  his  profes- 
sion of  teaching  on  law. 

28  Froboess,  R.  E.  XII,  p.  3f. 

29  See  J.  Gensichen,  Denkschrift  zum  50  jaehrigen  Jubilaeu'.n 
der  lutherischen  Vereine.     1899. 


122 

capital  of  Saxony.^°  Now  Huschke  became  the  special 
leader  of  the  movement.  The  king  published  the  decree 
(Kabinetts-Ordre)  of  February  28,  1834,  giving  to  the 
Union  the  character  of  a  confederation.  It  was  hoped 
that  this  would  put  a  stop  to  the  restlessness  of  the  Bres- 
lauers  and  their  sympathizers.  But  these  were  deter- 
mined to  be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  than  a  Lutheran 
government  for  the  Lutheran  Church.  So,  under  date 
of  April  4th,  1834,  a  number  of  ministers  and  candidates 
of  theology  and  thirty-four  congregational  representa- 
tives appealed  to  the  king  to  recognize  them  as  an  inde- 
pendent Lutheran  church.  The  petition  was  flatly  re- 
fused. To  make  further  resistance  impossible,  a  num- 
ber of  laws  were  made:  (1)  against  private  religious 
meetings;  (2)  against  the  performing  of  ministerial  acts 
by  persons  not  ordained;  (3)  against  parents  refusing 
to  send  their  children  to  the  religious  instruction  of  the 
state  schools;  (4)  against  ministers  not  using  the  king's 
Agenda.  This  was  the  program  of  the  State  for  crush- 
ing the  movement.  The  pastors,  Berger,  Biehler  and 
Kellner  were  deposed  from  the  ministry,  because  they 
insisted  on  using  the  Lutheran  formulas  for  ministerial 
acts  and  they  rejected  the  king's  Agenda  which  was  to 
them  the  symbol  of  the  Union.  On  the  basis  of  the  afore- 
mentioned decrees  a  comprehensive  system  of  police  per- 
secutions was  now  inaugurated.  Much  has  been  written 
on  both  sides  on  the  case  at  Hoenigern  (Silesia)  where 
a  congregation  of  thousands  resisted  the  introduction  of 
the  Agenda  and  was  forced  to  yield  to  a  strong  military 
force."'  We  shall  have  occasion  for  a  special  discussion 
of  this  case  later.  After  the  event  at  Hoenigern,  a  con- 
siderable number  of  ministers  with  their  congregations 
joined  the  opponents  of  the  State.       Among  them  was 

30  Here  he  wrote  his  two  volumes  "Aktenmaessige  Geschichte 
der  neuesten  Unternehmung  einer  Union"  (1834),  which  is  recog- 
nized as  the  best  source-book  on  the  history  of  the  Union  up  to 
the  time  of  its  publication.  The  writer  had  the  use  of  this  work 
through  the  kindness  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  li- 
brarian, but  has  preferred  to  give  the  references  after  Wange- 
mann  who  takes  us  up  to  1884. 

31  See  the  detailed  report  in  R.  E.  XII,  p.  6,  8-30. 


123 

Guericke,  professor  of  church  history  in  Halle.  All  were 
deposed  from  the  ministry.  But  they  persisted  in  serv- 
ing their  congregations.  In  the  spring  of  1835  they  or- 
ganized themselves  into  a  synod  and  made  careful  provi- 
sion for  serving  their  scattered  churches.  Four  candi- 
dates were  ordained.  Chased  by  the  police,  the  ministers 
were  hurrying  from  place  to  place,  preaching  and  admin- 
istering the  sacraments,  mostly  at  night.  When  appre- 
hended they  were  imprisoned.  When  members  of  the 
congregations  refused  to  disclose  the  names  of  ministers 
who  had  officiated  they  were  punished  with  three  months' 
imprisonment  on  water  and  bread.  Many  laymen  in 
those  days  lost  all  their  possessions  through  fines.  The 
oppression  was  so  persistent  and  reached  such  a  degree 
of  severity  that  in  some  congregations  hope  for  a  better 
day  was  given  up  and  plans  were  matured  for  emigrat- 
ing. Some  went  to  Australia,  others  came  to  America."- 
The  crown  prince,  later  King  Frederick  William  IV,  was 
convinced  of  the  wrongfulness  of  his  father's  policy  and 
sought  to  intervene.^^  In  1840  King  Frederick  William 
III  died.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  his  successor  was  to 
liberate  the  interned  Lutheran  ministers.  In  the  follow- 
ing year,  they  organized  themselves  publicly  as  the 
"Oberkirchenkollegium,"  free  from  the  State,  with  Pro- 
fessor Huschke  as  first  president,  and  they  were  recog- 
nized by  the  State  in  1845.^*  In  1913  this  first  Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran  Free  Church  in  Prussia  comprised  59,817 
members,  86  pastors,  156  churches,  22  chapels  and  houses 
of  prayer. 

After  Wangemann's  publication  of  the  "Una  Sancta" 
the  advocates  of  the  Union  have  criticized  this  Lutheran 
movement.  It  is  said  that  it  was  nothing  but  plain  re- 
bellion against  the  measures  of  a  just  king  without  a  le- 
gitimate   confessional    motive.       Wangemann    contends 

32  R.  E.  XII,  6,  55ff.  Meusel  I,  104.  With  Wangemann's  rep- 
resentation in  Una  Sancta  I,  book  3,  p.  iii  on  "Grabau"  compare 
the  article  by  Grabau's  son  in  the  Lutheran  Encyclopedia,  p.  203. 

33  Cf.  R.  E.  XII,  p.  3off. ;  p.  7,  6-27. 

34  R.  E.  XII,  p.  7,  23ff. 


124 

that  the  Lutheran  character  of  the  congregation  at  Hoe- 
nigern  was  in  no  wise  threatened,  because  in  the  king's 
Agenda  provision  was  made  for  Lutheran  congregations 
preferring  Lutheran  forms  of  expression  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments.  In  addition  to  that  he  charges 
the  leaders  of  the  movement,  Scheibel,  Huschke  and  their 
followers,  with  un-Lutheran  and  peculiar  theories  con- 
cerning the  relation  of  Church  and  State,  and  he  insists 
that  it  was  for  these  theories  that  minister  and  congrega- 
tion stood  in  that  conflict  at  Hoenigem.  What  is  to  be 
answered  ? 

Wangemann  in  his  "Una  Sancta"^^  has  a  distinct  merit 
for  having  published  many  documents  bearing  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  Union  policy  of  the  Hohenzollerns,  and  many 
of  his  reflections  in  the  Una  Sancta  are  of  a  very  instruc- 
tive nature.  But  Wangemann  must  be  read  with  criti- 
cism.^" He  had  removed  to  Berlin  as  president  of  a  for- 
eign mission  institute  which  depended  upon  the  good  will 
of  the  government  and  also  upon  the  support  of  many 
circles  that  had  settled  down  under  the  Union  arrange- 
ment.^^ 

As  a  guide  for  reading  Wano^emann  on  the  Hoenigern 
case  we  call  attention  to  the  following:  (1)  Pastor  Kell- 
ner,  of  the  Hoenigern  Church,  was  deposed  from  his 
charge  because  he  and  the  congregation  with  him  refused 
the  king's  Agenda.     This  was  the  real  point  of  conten- 

35  This  work  of  two  volumes  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  his 
"Sieben  Bnecher  preussischer  Kirchengeschichte."  These  books 
he  wrote  as  an  opponent  of  the  Prussian  Union.  But  later,  he 
changed  his  position  and  became  an  advocate  of  the  Union  in  its 
confederative  form,  defending  the  position  of  the  Lutherans  who 
wanted  to  remain  in  the  state  church  against  those  that  sepa- 
rated themselves.  As  an  expression  of  this  position  and  at  the 
same  time  to  correct  various  matters  that  he  had  written  in  the 
former  work,  he  published  the  Una  Sancta. 

36  See  the  article  on  "Wangemann"  in  Meusel  VII,  p.  170. 

37  See  Una  Sancta  I,  book  5,  p.  403.  As  the  Leipzig  Foreign 
Mission  Institute  had  become  the  rallying  point  of  the  separated 
Lutherans  (R.  E.  XII,  p.  8,  6fif.)  so  Wangemann's  institution  be- 
came the  centre  of  the  missionary  ac*:ivities  of  those  Lutherans 
of  Prussia,  who  remained  in  the  Union,  the  "Lutheran  Associa- 
tions."    Cf.  Meusel  IV,  p.  379. 


125 

tion?^  The  State  declared :  Adoption  of  the  Agenda  does 
not  mean  the  adoption  of  the  Union.^'  But  the  Luther- 
ans could  not  help  but  see  in  the  Agenda,  not  only  the 
symbol  of  the  Union,  but  even  the  instrument  for  its  in- 
troduction. Prof.  Hauck  says :  "The  forms  for  prepara- 
tory service  and  communion  were  un-Lutheran,  particu- 
larly the  form  of  distribution  failed  to  give  satisfaction. 
While  it  did  not  contradict  the  Lutheran  conception, 
neither  did  it  give  expression  to  it.  And  so  the  form 
seemed  to  be  intended  for  the  silent  removal  of  the  Lu- 
theran interpretation.""  A  special  permission  to  cer- 
tain individual  congregations  to  substitute  more  Luth- 
eran expressions  could  give  no  satisfaction  to  those  that 
fought  for  the  rights  of  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  in 
the  country.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  State  was 
pressing  the  Union  in  every  possible  way  (introduction 
of  the  Reformed  rite  of  breaking  the  bread,  abandon- 
ment of  the  name  "Lutheran,"  "Unionsrevers"  at  the  or- 
dination of  ministers,  etc.)  Decoration  with  the  "red 
order  of  the  eagle"  was  much  used  to  invite  yielding  to 
the  Union.  And  it  must  be  said  that  in  spite  of  all  the 
assurances  that  adoption  of  the  Agenda  did  not  mean 
joining  the  Union  the  State  itself  did  look  upon  the 
Agenda  as  a  symbol  and  instrument  of  the  Union." 
Hauck  says  that  the  king  could  not  command  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Union  (namely  that  Lutherans  and  Reformed 
should  blend  into  one  congregation,  that  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  congregations  should  establish  themselves 
upon  the  consensus  position),  but  as  sumnius  episcopus 
he  could  command  the  adoption  of  forms  for  worship  and 
ministerial  acts.  To  this  Hauck  adds  the  remark :  "So 
it  can  easily  be  seen  what  significance  the  Agenda  was 
bound  to  have  for  the  introduction  of  the  Union."  We 
may  say,  the  Agenda  was  the  instrument  for  clinching 


8?      See    Wangemann,     "Drei     Preussische     Dragonaden,"    Una 
Sancta  II,  book  2,   pp.  13,  64.    Cf.  R.  E.  XII,  p.  6.  8. 

39  R.  E.  XII,  p.  2,  45. 

40  R.  E.  XX,  p.  258,  26ff. 

41  Read  Hauck  in  R.  E.  XXI,  p.  257,  50;  258,  13-15. 


326 


the  Union.*-  As  matters  had  developed,  yielding  on  the 
Agenda  would  have  been  the  same  as  in  Melanchthon's 
time  the  yielding  to  the  interims.  For  a  Lutheran  con- 
science, the  adoption  of  the  Agenda  was  no  adiapheron. 
Wangemann  in  his  discussion  has  completely  beclouded 
the  issue.*^  (2)  Again  Wangemann  has  failed  to  repre- 
''seoat  thfe  situation  correctly  when  he  says  that  the  pro- 
testing and  appealing  ministers  stood  merely  for  the  pe- 
culiar theories  of  Scheibel  and  Huschke  regarding  the  re- 
lation of  Church  and  State."  Surely,  the  varying  theo- 
ries of  these  men  were  not  the  practical  point  of  dispute 
for  the  opponents  of  the  Union.  What  they  wanted  was 
a  guarantee  for  an  unmolested  existence  of  Lutheranism 
not  only  in  the  local  congregation,  but  in  the  country. 
And  while  they  stood  in  the  fight  the  conviction  was 
growing  with  them  that  the  Church  must  be  free  from 
the  State  altogether.*^  To  us  in  the  Free  Church  of 
America  the  correctness  of  this  position  is  so  clear  that 
it  needs  not  to  be  argued.  To  illustrate  only,  we  ask: 
Could  the  Presbyterian  Church  exist,  grow,  develop  and 
fulfill  its  peculiar  mission  under  a  mixed  government, 
dominated  by  influences  bent  upon  its  equalization  vdth 
other  forms  of  Protestantism?  (3)  Even  that  cannot 
alter  our  conviction  of  the  rightfulness  in  geneial  of  the 
position  of  those  Lutherans  if  it  can  be  shown  that  their 
contention  was  at  times  connected  with  an  unjustifiable 
enthusiasm  and  even  fanaticism.  Church  history  shows 
us  that  in  times  of  persecution  good  movements  can  lose 
their  balance  for  a  season.     Among  the  Christians  of  the 

42  Cf.  R.  E.  XVII,  p.  550.  ii. 

43  At  another  place  in  his  Una  Sancta  (i,  3.  §7o)  he  has  stated 
it  correctly. 

44  See  Una  Sancta  II,  book  3,  p.  I4f.  Cf.  vol.  I,  book  3,  §§66-68. 
Compare  further  on  "Scheibel,"  R.  E.  XVII,  p.  594,  20-42;  p.  550,  8; 
p.  551,  36fiF.     Compare  on  "Huschke,"  R.  E.  VIII,  p.  469,  25!!;  p.  470, 

27ff- 

45  See  R.  E.  XII,  p.  7,  10-21.  Wangemann  ignores  too  much 
the  significance  of  a  Lutheran  government  for  the  Lutheran 
Church.  But  his  position  is  artificial.  He  does  not  and  cannot 
speak  his  own  soul.  There  can  be  no  stronger  refutation  of  his 
attitude  to  the  demand  of  those  Lutherans  than  what  he  himself 
writes  in  book  5  of  the  Una  Sancta  I,  pp.  378-87. 


127 

first  centuries  some  went  so  far  as  even  to  seek  martyr- 
dom. A  good  and  a  great  man  like  Tertullian  was  a  rep- 
resentative of  such  a  mistaken  view.  History  will  con- 
tinue to  speak  with  respect  of  the  case  of  the  old  Prussian 
Lutherans  in  their  conflict  vdth  the  Union  policy  of  the 
Hohenzollerns.  In  spite  of  Wangemann's  elaborate  publi- 
cations we  find  that  such  a  standard  work  as  the  "Pro- 
testantische  Realencyclopaedie"  of  twenty-four  volumes 
relates  the  Hoenigern  case  and  the  persecution  of  those 
Lutherans  in  essential  harmony  with  original  reports.*'' 
Hengstenberg's  "Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,"  in  1859, 
looked  back  over  more  than  thirty  years  after  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Union  and  wrote :  "What  has  been  accom- 
plished? Twenty  to  thirty  thousand  Lutherans  have 
been  driven  across  the  Atlantic,  forty  to  fifty  thousand 
into  independent  Lutheran  organizations,  and  within  the 
Church  nothing  but  conflict  and  troubled  conscience 
wherever  the  word  'Union'  is  pronounced." 


"47 


IV.      THE  PLAN  OF  AN  ABSORPTIVE  UNION  CHANGED  INTO  A 
CONFEDERATION. 

It  was  in  consequence  of  that  constantly  growing  op- 
position which  led  to  the  establishment  of  a  free  Luth- 
eran Church  in  Prussia  that  Frederick  William  III  de- 
cided to  give  to  the  Union  a  more  confederative  charac- 
ter. In  the  year  1834  he  issued  a  historically  significant 
decree  which,  in  one  section,  read  as  follows:  "The 
Union  does  not  aim  at  nor  does  it  mean  a  giving  up  of  the 
existing  confessions  of  faith;  neither  is  the  authority 
annulled,  which  these  confessions  have  hitherto  had.  The 
adoption  of  the  Union  means  only  an  expression  of  the 
spirit  of  moderation  and  toleration,  which  does  not  any- 
more make  the  difference  in  some  points  of  doctrine,  to 
which  the  other  party  holds,  a  cause  for  refusing  the  out- 


46  See  R.  E.  XII,  p.  6ff. 

47  Cf.  American  Lutheran  Survey,  June  5th,  1918,  p.  203;  also 
Lutheran  Church  Work  and  Observer,  July  4,  1918,  and  Fritschel, 
Lutherisch  oder  Uniert,  p.  21.    Wartburg  Publ.  House,  Chicago. 


128 

ward  church-fellowship.  The  adoption  of  the  Union  is  a 
matter  of  free  choice,  and  it  is  therefore  a  mistaken  idea 
that  the  introduction  of  the  renewed  order  of  service  in- 
volves the  adoption  of  the  Union  or  is  thereby  indirectly 
effected."*^ 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  this  decree  a  course  differ- 
ent from  the  original  plan  is  observable.  In  the  procla- 
mation of  1817  the  aim  was  at  the  establishment  of  "a 
renewed  Evangelical  Christian  Church,"  based  upon  the 
consensus,  or  "the  principal  points  in  Christianity, 
wherein  both  churches  agree."  The  dissensus  was  de- 
clared to  be  "nonessential."  Now,  the  existing  Confes- 
sions were  not  to  be  given  up,  their  former  authority  was 
not  to  be  annulled.  Yet,  three  union  factors  were  to  re- 
main in  force :  ( 1 )  the  non-confessional  state  church  gov- 
ernment; (2)  the  Agenda,  (3)  the  outward  church-fel- 
lowship at  the  altar  and  in  other  matters.^"  The  Union, 
also  in  this  second  stage  of  its  development,  remained  a 
dualism.  That  was  the  reason  why  the  separated  Luth- 
erans felt  that  they  could  not  compromise.  This  new 
order  of  the  king,  therefore,  did  not  bring  peace  to  the 
Church  of  Prussia.  Two  factions  now  stood  opposed  to 
each  other:  the  friends  of  the  Union  who  were  striving 
to  bring  to  recognition  its  original  absorptive  character, 
and  the  Lutherans  who  strove  for  the  confessional  char- 
acter of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  Union  so  that  they 
might  not  be  driven,  in  their  conscience,  to  follow  the 
Lutherans  that  separated  themselves  from  the  state 
church. 

The  Union  party  was  represented  by  the  so-called 
Union  theologians,  also  known  in  the  theological  develop- 
ments of  that  age  as  the  "mediating  theologians,"  the 

48  Wangemann,  Die  kirchliche  Kabinets-Politik  Friedr.  Wilh. 
Ill  (Una  Sancta  II),  pp.  327^-  Cf.  Hauck  in  R.  E.  XX,  p.  257,  49, 
Meusel  VII,  p.  6.     Stahl,  p.481. 

49  To  this  church-fellowship  belonged  such  matters  as  sub- 
scription at  ordination  to  "the  confessions  of  our  Evangelical 
Church,"  freedom  for  pastors  to  serve  either  church,  as  long  as 
the  congregations  did  not  object.  See  Meusel  VII,  p.  6,  2nd  col- 
umn; Stahl,  p.  483. 


129 

moet  influential  of  whom  were  Julius  Mueller,  Domer,  C. 
I.  Nitzsch,  Luecke,  Ullmann,  Schenkel,  J.  P.  Lange,  Bey- 
schlag  and  others.  The  position  of  these  men  on  the 
Union  was  best  expressed  in  the  writing  of  Mueller,  "Die 
Evangelische  Union"  (1845),  and  in  that  of  Nitzsch, 
"Urkundenbuch  der  Evangelischen  Union"  (1853).'**' 
The  aim  was  at  a  common  confession  for  the  Union, 
drafted  by  Nitzsch,"  and  presented  by  his  party  at  a  gen- 
eral synod  in  Berlin,  held  in  1846.  This  confession,  in 
the  shape  of  a  formula  for  ordination^-  eliminated  even 
parts  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  too  much  out  of  harmony 
with  the  present  state  of  theological  science,  and  it  pre- 
sented, in  the  language  of  Scripture  passages,  what  was 
regarded  as  fundamental  in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
confessions,  thereby  silently  relegating  the  differences 
between  the  two  churches  to  the  category  of  nonfunda- 
mentals.  The  Union  theologians,  especially  Jul.  Mueller 
(professor  in  Halle),  had  developed  a  theory  as  a  scien- 
tific foundation  for  the  distinction  between  fundamentals 
and  non-fundamentals.  It  was  the  distinction  between 
intuition  and  discursive  thought.  The  objectively  divine 
in  Scripture  and  in  the  historic  confessions  of  the 
churches  constitutes  the  fundamentals  as  opposed  to  the 
human  conception  in  Scripture  and  confession,  which  is 
non-fundamental.^^  But  there  was  so  much  opposition 
to  this  "Nicenum  of  the  nineteenth  century,"  to  the  "Nitz- 
schenum"  as  it  was  called,  that  the  government  could  not 

50  On  these  two  standard  works,  see  Wangemann,  "Die  Preus- 
sische  Union  in  ihrem  Verhaeltnis  zur  Una  Sancta"  (I,  book  6,  pp. 
350-54).  Nitzsch  published  in  his  book  the  following  Union  docu- 
ments as  an  expression  of  the  true  Union  :  the  Marburg  Articles, 
the  Wittenberg  Concord,  the  Consensus  of  Sendomir,  the  Bran- 
denburg Confessions,  the  Union  proclamation  of  1817,  (the  decree 
of  1834  was  omitted),  a  proposed  creed  for  the  Union  by  Nitzsch 
himself,  of  which  we  shall  now  speak. 

51  R.  E.  XIV,  p.  133,  23. 

52  See  it  quoted  by  Nitzsch,  p.  127,  and  by  Wangemann,  ut 
supra,  p.  296.  Cf.  Kurtz,  Church  History  (Engl.)  §193,  3.  R.  E,  IV, 
803,  5,  18;  XIII,  533,  loff ;  XIV,  132,  60. 

53  See  the  most  interesting  discussion  of  this  matter  in  Stahl, 
Luth.  Kirche  und  Union,  pp.  367-97:  "Die  Union  im  Sinne  der  Ver- 
mittlungstheologie."  Cf.  Meusel,  "Begruendung  der  Union  durch 
die  Unionstheologie,"  in  Handlexikon  VII,  p.  8. 


130 

for  a  moment  consider  its  adoption.  This  negative  at- 
titude of  the  government  to  the  propositions  of  this  gen- 
eral synod  of  Berlin  in  1846  marked  the  final  failing  of 
an  absorptive  Union  in  Prussia. 

The  party  of  confessional  Lutherans  in  the  Union  had 
received  its  stimulation  through  the  Breslau  movement 
of  which  we  have  reported.  In  the  period  of  persecution 
through  the  State  the  missionaries  of  the  persecuted  came 
into  the  congregations  in  Silesia,  Pommerania,  Posen, 
Brandenburg,  Province  of  Saxony  and  awakened  the  Lu- 
theran consciousness  of  the  people.  This  took  effect  es- 
pecially with  the  earnest  believers  in  the  congregations. 
With  the  scruples  over  the  Union  they  came  to  their  pas- 
tors, and  these,  in  order  to  be  able  to  answer  the  ques- 
tions of  their  parishioners,  were  forced  to  study  the  long 
forgotten  confessions  of  the  Church.  So  Lutheran  con- 
sciousness was  revived  among  the  ministers  who  soon  be- 
gan to  send  petitions  to  Berlin  for  safeguarding  the  Lu- 
theran Church.  Lutheran  organizations  sprang  into  ex- 
istence in  all  the  eastern  provinces  of  Prussia.'^*  Pom- 
merania was  especially  leading  in  this  movement.  The 
year  of  revolution,  1848,  came.  King  Frederick  William 
IV  was  at  the  point  of  abandoning  the  government  of  the 
Church."  The  Lutheran  Association  in  Pommeria  had 
already  taken  steps  for  an  independent  organization  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.  But  the  waves  of  the  revolution 
soon  receded  and  restoration  of  the  old  order  in  church 
matters  followed.  At  this  time,  Sept.  10th,  1849,  all  the 
separate  Lutheran  organizations  assembled  in  Witten- 
berg and  organized  themselves  into  a  central  society. 
They  established  themselves  upon  five  theses  which  are 
known  in  history  as  the  "Wittenberger  Saetze,"  and  form 
the  program  of  the  organization.     These  read  as  follows : 

First.  "We  stand  on  the  confessions  of  the  Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran  Church." 

54  See  article  "Lutherischer  Verein"  in  Meusel  IV,  p.  379S. 

55  Wangemann,  Die   Preussische   Union   in   ihrem  Verhaeltab 
zur  Una  Sancta  I,  book  6,  p.  309. 


131 

Second.  "We  are  convinced  that  our  congregations 
have  never  rightly  ceased  to  be  Lutheran  congregations, 
and  that  we  are  in  duty  bound  to  defend  their  confes- 
sional rights  with  all  our  might." 

Third.  "The  confessional  rights  of  the  Lutheran  con- 
gregations demand  for  their  safeguard  a  confessional 
constitution.  Accordingly,  we  ask  for  recognition  and  a 
carrying  through  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions  in  cultus, 
congregational  constitutions  and  government." 

Fourth.  "As  the  first  aim  of  our  endeavor  we  mention 
the  liberation  of  the  altar  service  from  all  ambiguity  and 
a  full  expression  of  our  confessions  in  the  entire  divine 
service.  Further,  we  demand  a  guarantee  of  our  con- 
fessional independence  in  the  administration  of  the 
church  government  and  preservation  of  Lutheran  princi- 
ples in  our  congregational  constitutions." 

Fifth.  "These  ends  we  do  not  wish  to  accomplish  by  a 
leaving  of  the  State  Church,  because  we  feel  bound  in 
conscience  to  carry  through  this  fight  for  the  good  rights 
of  our  Lutheran  Church  upon  her  own  territory  within 
the  State  Church." 

This  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  Prussian  Church 
Union  when  it  was  not  regarded  wise  to  ignore  the  de- 
mands of  the  Lutherans.  The  State  was  interested  in 
keeping  them  from  joining  the  separated  Lutherans.  So 
it  came  that  the  king  (Frederick  William  IV),  in  a  de- 
cree of  1852,  made  to  them  a  concession  that  affected 
even  the  church  government.  In  that  order  the  follow- 
ing stipulation  was  made :  "The  Evangelische  Oberkirch- 
enrat  consists  of  members  belonging  to  both  churches, 
and  if  there  is  a  matter  that  can  be  decided  only  by  fol- 
lowing the  confessions  of  one  of  the  two  churches  then 
the  preparatory  decision  (Vorfrage)  is  to  be  reached  by 
a  vote  of  the  members  belonging  to  that  side,  and  their 
decision  is  then  made  the  basis  for  the  vote  of  the  entire 
body.  Therefore  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  Lutheran 
Church  only  those  members  of  the  Oberkirchenrat  who 


132 

belong  to  that  confession  shall  decide."***  At  first  this 
so-called  itio  in  partes  decree  was  much  appreciated  by 
the  Lutherans,  because  it  showed  that  the  king  seriously 
wanted  to  safeguard  the  Lutheran  Church  and  that  the 
confederative  character  of  the  Union,  as  announced  in 
1834  (in  place  of  the  absorptive  of  1817),  was  to  be  the 
policy  of  the  State.  As  to  the  real  value  and  practica- 
bility of  this  decree,  however,  there  followed  a  consider- 
able discussion."  The  statement  has  been  made  that 
never  in  the  history  of  the  Oberkirchenrat  has  a  decision 
been  made  after  the  procedure  suggested  in  the  decree.^* 
The  fact  is  that  close  upon  the  heel  of  this  itio  in  partes 
order  there  followed  another  decree  (July  12,  1853)  that 
was  to  take  care  of  the  interests  of  the  Union.^' 
Here  the  Lutherans  were  censured  for  their  con- 
fessional policies  ("konfessionelle  Sonderbestrebun- 
gen").  The  two  decrees  of  1852  and  1853  taken 
together  reflect  in  an  interesting  way  the  policy  which 
the  Prussian  State  Church  was  persuing.  The  adherents 
to  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  confessions  were  to 
have  free  religious  exercise  in  their  local  territories,  but 
a  public  advocacy  of  the  principles  of  either  of  the  two 
churches  was  to  be  discouraged.  Propaganda  was  per- 
mitted only  for  the  Union,  not  for  the  Confession.  The 
Lutherans  especially  were  to  be  kept  from  asserting 
themselves.  Wangemann  says  (p.  358)  that  since  1854 
no  confessional  Lutheran  was  called  into  the  higher 
church  offices.  The  friends  of  the  Union  organized  them- 
selves into  a  strong  association  (Positive  Union).  Stahl 
asked  to  be  dismissed  from  the  Oberkirchenrat,  and  his 
resignation  was  gladly  accepted  (1857) .  It  was  the  time 
when  Hoffmann  and  Dorner  were  the  most  influential 
men  in  the  government  of  the  Prussian  Church  Union.*** 

56  See  the  text  of  this  Kabinets-Ordre  in  Wangemann,  Die 
Preussische  Union,  Una  Sancta  I,  6,  pp.  332!!. 

57  See  Wangemann,  ut  supra,  pp.  338ff. 

58  Stahl,  p.  488. 

59  Printed  in  Wangemann,  ut  supra,  pp.  342f. 

60  See  the  characterization  of  these  two  men  as  promoters  of 
the  Union  by  Wangemann,  ut  supra,  pp.  377-80.  On  Hoffmann's 
conception  of  the  Union  cf.  R.  E.  VII,  p.  228,  36flF. 


W.  Hoffmann  especially,  a  talented  executive,  whom 
the  king  had  called  from  the  South  as  his  court-preacher, 
and  as  General  Superintendent  for  Brandenburg,*^^  was 
the  man  who  labored  to  consolidate  the  Prussian  Church 
Union  into  what  it  was  in  the  closing  days  of  the  old 
German  empire.  During  the  time  of  his  office  (1852- 
73)  the  final  organization  of  the  Union  with  regard  to 
congregation,  liturgical  acts,  synod  and  general  synod 
was  wrought  out  in  all  details.*'-  Especially  from  1860 
to  1873  the  work  upon  this  complicated  piece  of  church 
organization  had  been  continuous.*'^  Hoffman  expressed 
his  personal  ideal  of  a  union  as  follows :  "I  am  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Confession  in  so  far  as 
I  was  educated,  confirmed  and  ordained  in  the  Lutheran 
Church.  But  to  this  I  add  that  my  theological  convic- 
tion leads  me  to  the  union  of  the  two  Confessions  as  it 
has  in  reality  always  existed  in  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion.^* That  the  Lutheran  dogma  by  itself  and  without 
i*egard  to  the  Reformed  no  more  expresses  to  me  the  the- 
ological form  of  my  faith  than  does  the  Reformed  dogma, 
unsupplemented  by  the  Lutheran;  that  I,  therefore,  re- 
gard a  real  inner  union  of  the  two  Confessions  as  an  un- 
deniable demand  of  each  of  them,  and  can  acknowledge 
only  one  Evangelical  Protestant  Church  in  two  confes- 
sional types — not  two  kinds  of  evangelical  churches."®^ 
And  yet,  Hoffman  admitted  that  an  absorptive  Union  as 
suggested  by  Nitzsch  and  Mueller  in  1846   (see  above) 

6i  He  had  been  president  of  the  Basle  Foreign  Mission  insti- 
tute which  is  established  upon  the  principle  of  an  absorptive 
Union. 

62  For  tracing  the  development  after  1873  we  refer  to  Rieker, 
"Die  rechtliche  Stellung  der  Evangelischen  Kirche  in  Deutschland ;" 
also  "Jubilaeumsdemkschrift  des  Evangelischen  Oberkirchen- 
rates"  (1900).  Cf.  Beyschlag,  "Deutsch-Evanglische  Blaetter," 
1900  pp.  497ff. 

63  Wangemann,  as  quoted,  pp.  359flf;  cf.  404. 

64  Hoffmann  meant  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530,  inter- 
preted by  the  Variata  editions  after  1540.  The  German  Reformed 
have  always  tried  to  harmonize  the  Augsburg  Confession  thus 
qualified,  with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  This  explains  why  the 
advocates  of  historical  Ltuheranism  have  insisted  upon  subscrip- 
tion to  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  See  pp.  42-43  and 
72f.  of  our  discussions.  Also  Neve,  Introduction  to  Lutheran 
Symbolics,  pp.  9iflF;  98f ;  207flF. 

65  R.  Koegel  in  R.  E.  VHI,  p.  228,  36-45. 


134 

was  not  practicable  and  advisable  for  Prussia.  The  con- 
federative  character  of  the  Union  was  recognized  in  the 
organization  that  became  law  in  1873. 

Note :  When  we  speak  of  the  Prussian  Church  Union 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  accessions  to  Prussia  in 
1866,  chief  of  which  were  the  Lutheran  provinces  of  Han- 
over and  Schleswig-Holstein,  kept  their  own  church 
government  and,  consequently,  did  not  join  the  Union. 
Hoffmann  and  Dorner  strongly  advocated  the  joining  of 
the  church  of  these  provinces  to  the  Union.  But  so 
frankly  did  he  reveal  the  ultimate  plans  of  the  Prussian 
Union,  namely  the  creation  of  one  Evangelical  National 
Church  for  all  Germany,  that  the  extra-Prussian  Luther- 
ans everywhere  were  scared  into  the  general  watchword : 
"Nur  nicht  unter  den  Evangelischen  Oberkirchenrat." 
(Wangemann,  398.)  It  was  at  this  time  (1868)  when 
Hoffmann  wrote  his  book,  "Deutschland  Einst  und  Jetzt 
im  Licht  des  Reiches  Gottes."  Here  he  said,  p.  494 :  "It 
is  the  mission  of  the  Prussian  Church  to  lead  in  the 
Union,  and  it  is  to  comprise  the  whole  German  Protes- 
tantism into  one  church.     The  Church  will  be  a  German 

church  only  when  the  territorial  pnnciple    has 

yielded  to  the  national  principle.  He,  therefore,  who  re- 
sists the  development  and  expansion  of  the  Union,  ne- 
gates the  results  of  the  German  Reformation  and  miscon- 
ceives thoroughly  the  mission  of  Germany  with  regard  to 
the  Church."  It  was  in  consequence  of  such  utterances 
of  the  leading  men  of  the  Union*'*'  that  the  Allgemeine 
Evangelisch  Lutherische  Konferenz,  by  the  calling  of  a 
convention  in  the  city  of  Hanover  (1868),  came  into  ex- 
istence.**' 

The  Prussian  Church  Union  which  in  these  times  of 
reconstruction  may  soon  have  to  give  way  to  some  kind 
of  free  church  organization,  is  very  complicated  and  not 
easily  defined.  In  order  to  arrive  at  an  adequate  de- 
scription of  its  character  a  few  questions  may  be  formu- 
lated, which  we  shall  try  to  answer : 

66  Doriier  also  spoke  of  a  "universal  German  Evangelical 
Church."     Wangemann,  p.  308. 

67  Wangemann,  p.  400. 


135 

First :  Was  it  correct  to  speak  of  a  Lutheran  Church 
and  a  Reformed  Church  in  the  old  provinces  of  Prussia? 
Up  to  the  treaty  of  Versailles  these  provinces  were  Bran- 
denburg, East  and  West  Prussia,  the  Province  of  Saxony, 
Posen,  Silesia,  Westfalia,  and  the  Rhine  Province.  Prof. 
Kawerau  said  in  a  letter  to  the  writer  a  number  of  years 
ago :  We  can  speak  only  of  a  State  Church  in  Prussia, 
in  which  the  congregations  are  either  Lutheran  or  Re- 
formed, or  (in  very  small  number)  consensus  congrega- 
tions and  that  the  government  of  this  State  Church  had 
the  obligation  to  protect  these — Lutheran  or  Reformed — 
congregations  upon  their  historical  confessional  basis. 
Stahl  says:  "The  State  Church  of  Prussia  is  not  a 
Union  church.  It  has  not  a  common  confessional  basis 
upon  which,  as  a  church,  it  stands,  but  its  basis  is 
throughout  the  distinguishing  confessions  of  the  Luth- 
eran and  the  Reformed  Churches."^^ 

Second :  How  was  the  agitation  regarding  the  Agenda 
settled  in  that  final  organization?  (See  above).  There 
the  concession  was  made  that  in  the  administration  of  the 
communion  the  Lutheran  form  of  distribution  may  be 
used,  but  it  was  conditioned  in  such  a  way  that  it  was 
difficult  for  the  ministers  to  avail  themselves  of  the  privi- 
lege. In  1895,  finally,  a  new  Agenda  was  issued  with 
parallel  forms  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
There  was  a  Lutheran  form  for  the  Lutherans,  a  Re- 
formed form  for  the  Reformed  congregations,  and  also  a 
Union  fomi  for  the  congregations  that  had  actually 
joined  the  Union. 

Third:  How  was  the  confessional  obligation  at  the 
ordination  of  ministers  settled?  Here  the  instruction 
reads  as  follows:  The  minister  is  to  preach  no  other 
doctrine  "but  the  one  which  is  founded  on  God's  pure  and 
clear  Word,  written  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  our  only  norm  of  faith,  and  as  it  is  tes- 
tified to  in  the  three  chief  church  symbols,  the  Apostolic, 
the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian  Creed  and  in  the  confes- 
sions of  our  church."      To  this  is  added  the  remark: 

68    Stahl,  ut  supra,  p.  49of. 


136 

"Here,  according-  to  custom  (wie  herkoemmJich),  the 
symbolical  writings  are  named."  In  the  Lutheran  pro- 
vinces it  is  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530. 

Fourth:  What  is  the  situation  with  regard  to  the 
catechisms?  A  convenient  guide  for  answering  this 
question  is  offered  by  Chors'  comprehensive  article  on 
catechisms  in  Vol.  X  of  the  Realencyclopaedie.  Here  it 
is  interesting  to  observe  that  Union  catechisms  are  in  use 
not  in  Prussia,  but  in  the  places  outside  of  Prussia  where 
the  Union  was  introduced,  namely  in  Anhalt,  Hesse,  Nas- 
sau, Waldeck,  Hanau,  Baden,  the  Palatinate  on  the 
Rhine.*'^  In  the  old  provinces  of  Prussia,  in  entire  con- 
sistency with  the  confederative  character  of  the  Union, 
either  the  Lutheran  or  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  in 
use.  All  eastern  provinces  are  Lutheran  with  perhaps 
only  one  Reformed  congregation  in  the  larger  cities  for 
Reformed  people  who  by  vocational  interests  have  to  live 
in  such  cities.  Parts  of  East  Friesland  (a  section  of 
Hanover),  but  especially  the  Rhine  provinces  are  over- 
whelmingly Reformed,  and  here  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism or  a  catechism  confessionally  identical  with  the 
Heidelberg  is  in  use.^** 

With  regard  to  confessional  statistics  it  has  frequently 
been  a  question  how  to  classify  the  inhabitants  of  Prus- 
sia as  it  was  before  the  peace  treaty  of  Versailles  in  1919. 
This  question  should  be  answered  as  follows:  (1)  Han- 
over (excepting  parts  of  East  Friesland),  Schleswig-Hol- 
stein,  and  about  500,000  inhabitants  of  Hesse-Nassau^^ 
are  Lutheran  in  the  sense  that  they  are  not  even  under 
the  Union.  (2)  Regarding  the  18,105,098  inhabitants 
of  the  older  provinces  (see  above),  the  Lutheran  Church 
would  be  entitled  to  all  who  have  been  confirmed  on  Lu- 
ther's catechism  provided  that  in  the  interpretative  parts 
that  catechism  has  not  been  modified  by  unionistic  ma- 
terials. Dr.  M.  Reu,  a  specialist  on  catechisms,  said  in 
an  article  in  the  "American  Lutheran  Survey"  (May  7, 

69  R.  E.  X.    See    pp.    I44f. 

70  R.  E.  X,  p.  153,  20-52;  cf.  p.  147,  2off. 

71  These  provinces  form  the  accessions  since  1866. 


18T 

1919),  "There  are  in  the  established  Church  of  Prussia 
still  at  least  eleven  millions,  who  have  been  instructed  in 
Luther's  Small  Catechism." 

And  yet,  our  description  would  be  incomplete  if  in  clos- 
ing we  would  not  at  the  same  time  call  attention  to  the 
various  Union  features  that  obtained  everywhere  in  the 
Prussian  State  Church.  We  refer  to  the  co-operation  in 
Inner  Missions,  in  Foreign  Missions,  in  Christian  publi- 
cation work,  to  the  pulpit  fellowship  everywhere  and  the 
altar  fellowship  at  many  places,  and  particularly  to  the 
theological  faculties  in  the  university.  Much  of  this  also 
obtained  in  the  Lutheran  dominions  of  Germany,  outside 
of  Prussia.  Dr.  Kawerau,  in  the  letter  to  which  we  re- 
ferred, tells  how,  as  a  gradual  effect  of  the  Union,  the 
confessional  division  with  regard  to  several  of  the  theo- 
logical branches  in  the  university  and  in  the  field  of  theo- 
logical literature  has  ceased  to  exist.  This,  he  says,  has 
reference  especially  to  exegesis  and  church  history.  The 
commentaries  of  the  Reformed  exegete  Godet,  in  German 
translation,  are  printed  and  sold  by  a  Lutheran  publisher 
in  Hanover.  Prof.  Schlatter,  Reformed,  was  called  from 
the  Swiss  university  at  Bern  to  fill  the  chair  of  New  Tes- 
tament Exegesis  at  the  Lutheran  University  in  Tuebin- 
gen.  Oettli,  another  Swiss  theologian,  was  put  into  the 
chair  of  Old  Testament  Exegesis  in  the  Greifswald  Uni- 
versity, the  most  Lutheran  in  the  schools  of  the  Prussian 
Union.  A  number  of  years  ago  there  were  two  RefoiTned 
professors  teaching  Old  Testament  and  Church  History 
at  Breslau,  the  university  of  the  Lutheran  province  of 
Silesia.  When  it  comes  to  Dogmatics,  Kawei'au  adds,  and 
especially  in  the  field  of  Practical  Theology,  the  confes- 
sional division  exists. 

The  developments  that  have  been  reviewed  in  this 
chapter  offer  much  material  for  reflection.  But  this  can 
be  given  with  more  profit  after  the  next  chapter  has  been 
presented,  which  is  to  discuss  the  union  of  the  "German 
Evangelical  Synod  of  America." 


138 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  GERMAN  EVANGELICAL  SYNOD  OF  NORTH  AMERICA. 


Literature:  Schory,  Geschichte  der  Deutschen  Evange- 
lischen  Synode  von  Nord-Amerika  (1889).  Muecke, 
Geschichte  der  Deutschen  Evangelischen  Synode  von 
Nord-Amerika  (1915).  Bruening,  The  Evangelical 
Church,  and  Kokritz,  The  Evangelical  Church  in  Amer- 
ica (the  same  under  the  title  "Memorial  Diamond  Jubi- 
lee") .  Both  of  these  discourses  are  published  together 
with  a  description  of  the  Church- Year  by  J.  H.  Hprst- 
mann,  as  "Evangelical  Fundamentals,  Part  One"  (Eden 
Publishing  House,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  1916).  Graeper,  The 
German  Evangelical  Synod  of  Nord  Amerika  (1912). 
Denkschrift  zur  SOjaehr.  Jubelfeier  der  Deutschen  Evan- 
gelischen Synode  von  Nord-Amerika  (1890).  Koch,  Wie 
lange  hinket  ihr  auf  beiden  Seiten?  (published  by  the 
author,  Rev.  W.  Koch,  Grand  Haven,  Mich.)  Niefer, 
Evangelisch  und  Lutherisch  (Die  Hauptunterschiede 
zwischen  unserer  evangelischen  Kirche  und  den  ortho- 
dox-lutherischen  Synoden) ,  published  by  the  author,  Rev. 
H.  Niefer,  550  Russel  Ave.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.  Mayer,  Die 
Zukunft  der  Deutschen  Evangelischen  Synode  von  Nord- 
Amerika  (1913).  Bauer,  Der  Freiheitskampf  der  Re- 
formation im  Lichte  der  Gegenwart  (1917).  Huber, 
Joseph  Rieger  (a  print  from  Jahresberichte  der  Gesell- 
schaft  fuer  die  Erforschung  der  Geschichte  der  Deut- 
schen in  Maryland).  Irion,  Der  Evangelische  Katechis- 
mus  (a  book  of  453  pp.,  published  by  the  Eden  Pub- 
lishing House,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  1897) .     "Evafigelical  Fun- 


139 

damentals,  Part  Two"  (Eden  Publishing  House).  Evan- 
gelical Catechism,  also  in  German  (the  hand-book  for 
catechetical  instruction),  Eden  Publishing  House,  revised 
edition  of  1896.  Evangelical  Book  of  Worship  (pub- 
lished by  the  synod,  1916) .  Prof.  Dr.  W.  Becker,  Evan- 
gelische  Glaubenslehre  (Eden  Publishing  House,  1913). 
Braendele,  Deutsche  Evangelische  Synode,  in  R.  E.  XIV, 
p.  178  ff.  Minutes  of  district  synods.  Magazin  fuer 
Evangelische  Theologie  und  Kirche  (Eden  Publishing 
House).  Neve,  1st  zwischen  der  Unierten  Amerikas  und 
der  Landeskirche  Preussens  wirklich  kein  Unterschied? 
(Lutheran  Literary  Board,  Burlington,  la.,  1903).  The 
same  in  English  in  Lutheran  Quarterly  (Gettysburg, 
Pa.),  1903,  p.  67  ff.  As  further  references  the  following 
works  have  been  used:  Stahl,  Wangemann,  Hering, 
Koestlin-Kawerau,  Rudelbach,  Kurtz  (as  cited  before), 
Hodge  (Systematic  Theology  III,  611  ff.),  Reu  (Die  Gua- 
denmittellehre,  1917),  Neve,  (History  of  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  and  Introduction  to  Lutheran  Sym- 
bolics) .  Among  the  documentary  literature  we  mention 
Zwingli's  Commentarius  de  vera  et  falsa  religione,  Cal- 
vin's Institutions,  book  IV,  chapters  14,  15,  17;  cf.  Eng- 
lish translation  by  J.  Allen,  sixth  edition,  the  Confessions 
of  the  Reformed  Church  (Niemeyer),  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord (Jacobs'  People's  Edition.)  Note  further  the  arti- 
cles in  the  R.  E.  (on  "Orthodoxie"  by  Burger,  XIV,  496; 
on  "Homiletik"  by  Caspari,  VIII,  303 ;  on  "Protestantis- 
mus"  by  Kattenbusch,  XVI,  135  ff . ;  on  "S.  S.  Schmucker" 
by  Spaeth,  XVII,  665,)  ;  also  in  Lutheran  Quarterly  (the 
previous  articles  of  our  series),  and  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  Review,  (articles  by  J.  A.  W.  Haas  on  "The 
Genius  of  Lutheranism,"  January  1919,  and  L.  F.  Gruber 
on  'The  Lutheran  Church  and  Christian  Union,"  April 
1918). 


140 

I.      HISTORICAL  ORIENTATION. 

After  the  Union  had  been  established  in  Germany,  it 
was  natural  that,  among  the  many  German  immigrants 
to  America  during  the  second  third  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, there  should  also  be  sympathizers  with  the  Union 
idea.  Some  of  these  were  instrumental  in  calling  mis- 
sionaries from  the  Union  circles  of  the  Fatherland.  The 
first  to  respond  to  these  invitations  was  the  Foreign  Mis- 
sion Institute  at  Basle  (1835).  The  Rhenish  Foreign 
Mission  Institute  at  Barmen  also  sent  candidates  for  the 
ministry.  In  1837  the  "Evangelical  Association  for  Pro- 
testant Germans  in  North  America"  at  Barmen  (the  so- 
called  "Langenberg  Association")  was  organized.  The 
Bremen  "Evangelical  Association  for  German  Protes- 
tants in  America"  followed  in  1839.  In  1852  a  "Society 
for  German  Evangelical  Missions  in  America"  was  called 
into  existence  in  Berlin.  Later  the  "Johannes  Stift"  at 
Berlin,  a  branch  institution  of  Wichern's  "Rauhe  Haus," 
near  Hamburg,  created  a  department,  the  so-called 
"Stemenhaus,"  for  the  education  of  ministers  in  Ameri- 
ca. All  these  societies  and  institutions  have  given  their 
chief  support  to  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North 
America.^ 

In  1840  the  men  from  Basle  and  Barmen  organized 
themselves  as  the  "German  Evangelical  Church  Associa- 


I  Schory,  Geschichte  der  Deutshen  Evangelischen  Synode  von 
Nord-Amerika,  pp.  :6  ff.  Muecke  Gesch.  d.  Deutsch.  Ev.  Syn.  in  N. 
A.,  pp.  63  ff.  Kokritz  in  "Fundamentals,  Part  One,"  pp.  27  f.  Braen- 
dele  in  R.  E.  XIV,  pp  178,  36  ff.  Krause  in  "Magazin,"  Sept.  1919, 
pp.  232  ff.  The  Langenberg  and  the  Berlin  Societies  for  a  time, 
also  contributed  to  Lutheran  Mission  work  in  America.  In  fact, 
it  was  by  the  missionaries  from  these  associations  that  the  Luth- 
eran Synod  of  Wisconsin,  now  a  part  of  the  Synodical  Conference, 
was  organized  (1848)  and  supplied  for  nearly  twenty  years, 
until  this  body  felt  that  it  had  to  decide  against  the  Union.  See 
O.  Engel  in  Neve,  Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica (second  edition),  pp.  320-324. 


141 

itas  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.  Another  "Evangelicar'  associa- 
tion, small  in  numbers,  was  founded  in  Ohio  (1850), 
which  affiliated  itself  with  the  association  of  the  West  in 
1858.  A  like  association  had  come  into  existence  in  the 
East  (1854),  and  it  also  joined  the  body  in  the  West 
(1860) .  Then  there  was  a  "United  Evangelical  Synod  of 
the  Northwest,"  numbering  forty-eight  ministers  and 
covering  Northern  Illinois,  Northern  Indiana,  Michigan 
•nd  Wisconsin;  also  an  Eastern  offshoot  of  this  body, 
which  numbered  twenty-five  ministers.^  In  1872  these 
also  joined  the  larger  body  around  St.  Louis.  Now  the 
name  was  chosen,  by  which  the  synod  is  known  to-day, 
the  "German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America."  A 
new  name  is  under  consideration  at  the  present  time: 
"The  Evangelical  Church  in  America."^ 

At  the  celebration  of  its  seventy-fifth  anniversary  in 
1915  the  synod  numbered  1074  ministers,  who  were  serv- 
ing 1381  congregations,  of  which  978  were  formally  af- 
filiated with  the  synod,  the  rest  being  independent.  Its 
educational  institutions  are  the  theological  seminary  at 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and  the  college  at  Elmhurst,  111.  The 
chief  publications  are  the  "Friedensbote,"  with  more  than 
24.000  subscribers,  the  "Evangelical  Herald"  (both  week- 
ly papers  for  the  home) ,  and,  for  ministers,  the  "Magazin 
fuer  Evangelische  Theologie  und  Kirche" — all  published 
by  the  synodical  "Eden  Publishing  House,"  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

II.      SOME  FACTORS  EXPLANATORY  OF  THE  GROWTH  OF  THE 

BODY. 

1.  The  support  from  the  Union  circles  in  the  Father- 
land has  been  pointed  out.  It  has  been,  indeed,  a  most 
telling  factor  especially  in  the  way  of  supplying  the 
tion  of  the  West"  (deutscher  Evangelischer  Kirchenver- 
ein  des  Westens).    The  centre  of  this  new  church  body 

2  Because  of  rationalism,  these  two  organizations,  originally- 
one  body,  had  become  separated.     See  Muecke,  as  cited,  pp.  187  flF. 

3  On  the  developments  which  have  here  been  related  see 
Schory,  pp.  13  f.,  33  flf. ;  Muecke,  pp.  96  ff.,  154  ff.,  187  ff. ;  Kokritz  in 
"Fundarnentals  I,"  p.  33;  the  same  author  in  "Diamond  Jubilee," 
p.  n;  Graeper,  Evangelical  Church,  p.  33;  Braendele  in  R.  E.  XIV, 
pp.  178-80. 


142 

young  and  struggling  synod  with  ministers  at  a  time 
when  the  immigration  from  Germany  was  at  its  height. 
From  the  Basle  Foreign  Mission  Institute  alone  about 
one  hundred  fifty  men  have  been  sent/ 

2.  Reaction  against  confessional  Lutheranism  in 
America  has  also  contributed  to  the  growth  of  this  church 
body.  To  make  plain  what  we  have  in  mind  we  have  to 
go  back  into  the  doctrinal  history  of  Lutheranism. 

Lutheranism  in  America,  at  the  time  of  its  establish- 
ment, had  to  pass  through  a  period  of  controversies.  The 
differing  tendencies  of  Lutheranism  in  Germany,  which 
were  produced  by  the  post-Reformation  age,  had  been 
pretty  well  settled  with  the  establishment  of  territorial 
churches.  In  America,  under  the  free  church  conditions, 
these  differing  tendencies  had  much  to  do  with  the  confes- 
sional basis  of  a  synod,  and,  therefore,  the  old  conflicts 
came  up  again.  Was  the  basis  for  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America  to  be  the  Augsburg  Confession  only  (in  the 
sense  of  including  Melanchthon's  later  development  as 
expressed  in  the  Variata  of  1540  and  its  successors,  so 
that  the  doors  of  the  Lutheran  Church  would  be  kept  open 
for  the  influences  from  Calvinism  and  the  denomina- 
tions) ;  or  was  it  to  be  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  har- 
mony with  the  Smalcald  Articles  and  the  doctrinal  de- 
velopment as  expressed  in  the  Formula  of  Concord?  In 
other  words,  was  Lutheranism  in  America  to  be  estab- 
lished upon  Melanchthonianism  or  upon  the  historic  po- 
.sition  of  Luther?  What  was  to  be  the  attitude  toward 
the  surrounding  denominations?  Was  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  America  to  represent  "a  Lutheranism,  modi- 
fied by  the  Puritan  element,"  or  was  it  to  be  established 
upon  its  own  historic  genius  as  first  expressed  in  the  cate- 
chisms of  Luther,  in  the  Schwabach  Articles  and  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  1530?'     These  were  by  no  means 

4  Cf-  Krause,  in  "Magazin"  (Sept.  1919)  P-  333-  Many  were  the 
candidates  sent  from  Barmen,  Berlin,  and  the  St.  Chrischona  In- 
stitute near  Basle.  .      ,       •,  .     xt         t 

5  All  these  questions  are  discussed  more  in  detail  in  Neve,  In- 
troduction to  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  79  f-.  91-100;  207  ff.  Com- 
pare also  his  Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America, 
2nd  ed.,  1916,  pp.  113  ff-.  436. 


143 

idle  questions,  but  they  affected  the  very  life  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  this  country,  its  genius,  its  future  and 
its  existence  among  the  denominations.  It  may  be  ad- 
mitted that  much  of  the  controversy  was  unnecessarily 
sharp,  and  that  the  distinguishing  line  between  essentials 
and  non-essentials  was  not  always  observed;  but  con- 
sidering the  whole  situation — the  transition  into  English, 
with  which  a  large  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica was  confronted  at  an  early  time,  the  influences  from 
the  revival  movements  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  the  problem  of  finding  a  safe  middle  ground  be- 
tween an  ultra-conservative  and  a  confessedly  lax  ten- 
dency— the  conflict  was  unavoidable.  It  is  practically 
settled  now,  and,  taken  as  a  whole,  it  has  yielded  a  rich 
harvest  of  experience  and  insight,  on  the  basis  of  which 
a  great  literature  of  sound  theology  is  springing  up."  The 
fruit  of  these  controversies  is  further  seen  in  the  reunion 
of  great  Lutheran  bodies  which  for  a  long  time  stood  op- 
posed to  each  other.  In  1918,  the  General  Synod,  the 
General  Council  and  the  United  Synod  of  the  South  form- 
ed the  United  Lutheran  Church  in  America.  A  year  be- 
fore a  like  union  took  place  among  the  Norwegian  Luth- 
erans (the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Synod,  the  United  Nor- 
wegian Church  and  the  Hauge  Synod  affiliating  in  the 
United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church),  and  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio,  the  German  Iowa  Synod  and  the  Buffalo 
Synod  have  drawn  together  in  a  common  understandings 
And  almost  all  of  these  bodies,  together  with  the  Swedish 
Augustana  Synod,  are  federated  in  the  National  Luth- 
eran Council.  Controversy  is  not  an  evil  when  a  true 
union  is  the  goal ! 

The  heat  of  the  conflict  among  the  various  Lutheran 
synods  was  at  its  height  in  the  decades  after  1840  when 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  was  in  its  formative 
period.     Having  sprung  from  the  Union  movements  in 


6  We  refer  to  works  such  as  the  "Conservative  Reformation" 
by  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth.  If  there  is  anything  that  has  le- 
gitimized the  confessional  interests  of  American  Lutheranism  it  is 
the  rich  literature  that  has  been  sent  out  by  the  publication 
bouses  of  the  Lutheran  Svnods. 


144 


Germany  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  the  controversies  oi 
Lutheranism  in  that  time  would  give  stimulus  to  the 
growth  of  a  synod  that  had  established  itself  upon  the 
Union  principle.  Doctrinal  controversy  on  the  matters 
that  separated  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed  was  detested 
as  a  quarrel  over  non-fundamentals.  Under  American 
conditions  the  appeal  was  to  the  congregations.  On  this 
subject  it  is  always  easy  to  gain  the  ear  of  laymen  who 
as  a  rule  are  not  students  of  church  history  and  who  can- 
not always  appreciate  the  principles  involved  in  the  con- 
flict between  the  Confession  and  the  Union.  The  laymen 
only  too  often  prefer  confessional  peace  where  a  contend- 
ing for  the  faith  is  the  need  of  the  hour.  But  by  appeal- 
ing to  the  layinan's  aversion  to  doctrinal  controversy  the 
German  Evangelical  Synod  was  bound  to  win  many  fol- 
lowers. 

3.  Another  factor  to  be  counted  in  explaining  the 
growth  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  in  congrega- 
tions (affiliated  and  independent)  is  to  be  sought  in  its 
liberal  attitude  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  practice,  which 
naturally  follows  from  the  Union  principle.  There  are 
especially  three  considerations  that  we  have  in  mind : 

(a).  From  the  beginning  of  its  organization  the 
synod  was  invited  to  do  missionary  work  among  a  class 
of  Germans  that  "had  outgrown  all  need  of  religion  and 
its  restraints."  These  German  immigrants  were  men  of 
means  and  intelligence,  who  had  settled  in  the  Missouri 
Valley  ("Latin  settlement"),  where  they  organized  as  a 
"German  Society"  (1834).  We  agree  with  the  writer  of 
the  "Memorial  Diamond  Jubilee"  when  he  says:  "The 
Evangelical  Church  had  a  duty  to  perform  to  Germans  of 
both  classes  in  these  Western  communities :  to  those  who 
wanted  the  Gospel  and  to  those  who  did  not  want  it,  but 
needed  it  nevertheless."^  There  was  no  permanency  to 
the  rationalistic  congregations  that  were  created  in  this 


7  See  Kokritz,  Diamond  Jubilee,  p.  4;  also  "Fundamentals  I,"  p. 
26.  Cf.  Huber,  "Pastor  Joseph  Rieger,"  separate  print  from 
"Jahresberichte  der  Gesellschaft  fuer  die  Erforschung  der  Ges- 
chichte  der  Deutschen  in  Maryland,"  p.  26;  also  Muecke,  Geschi- 
chte,  pp.  51  f. 


145 

"Latin  settlement" ;  by  and  by  all  were  absorbed  by  the 
German  Evangelical  Synod.     This  same  experience  was 
repeated  over  and  over  in  other  localities  of  this  country 
where  the  German  rationalists  founded  their  independ- 
ent congregations.    The  ministers  of  the  German  Evan- 
gelical Synod,  men  of  the  true,  deep  piety  as  it  had  been 
cultivated  in  the  Foreign  and  Inner  Mission  schools  of 
the  Fatherland,  preached  the  simple  Gospel,  used  the  rich 
German  hymnology  of  Evangelical  Protestantism,  taught 
the  young  in  parochial  schools,  and  in  this  way  it  succeed- 
ed in  attracting  many  congregations  that  had  originally 
been  organized  by  rationalists.     Special  mention  should 
be  made  of  the  many  congregations  of  the  "Forty  Eight- 
ers."     The  revolution  of  1848  in  Germany  brought  to  our 
country  a  considerable  immigration  of  cultured  Germans 
who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  political  settlement  after 
that    revolution.      They    were    opposed    to    Evangelical 
Christianity,  because  in  the  country  from  where  they  had 
come  they  had  found  that  orthodox  Protestantism  was  a 
reactionary  factor,  the  "altars  supporting  the  thrones," 
and  so  they  established  in  many  of  our  cities — Cincin- 
nati, Ohio,  being  a  centre — liberalistic  churches  on  the 
basis   of  Unitarianism    (Eisenloher's   Catechism),   sup- 
plied them  with  rationalistic  preachers  from  Germany, 
who  organized  themselves  as  the  *Tredigerbund."«     But 
no  church  organization  can  have  permanency  on  the  basis 
of  the  negations  of  Unitarianism.    Many  of  the  congre- 
gations soon  began    to  dwindle  and  to  disintegrate,  and 
most  have  been  taken  over  or  are  being  taken  over  by 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod.    Rationalism  always  had 
an  instinctive  aversion  against  confessional  positions  on 
the  basis  of  distinction  between  Lutherans  and  Refonned. 
So  the  Union  principle  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod 
with  the  flexibility  of  its  confessional  paragraph    (see 
below,  sub  III,  5),  inviting  diversity  of  theological  views, 

8  The  Predigerbund  is  in  no  sense  a  synod.  At  the  meetings 
there  are  no  delegates  from  congregations-  No  mission  work  is 
done,  except  a  little  along  humanitarian  lines  (orphans).  Of  late 
a  theological  department  has  been  conducted  in  connection  with 
a  seminary  in  Meadeville,  Pa. 


146 

appealed  more  to  these  congregations  than  did  either  the 
Lutheran  or  the  Reformed  Church.  Neither  would  it 
have  been  possible  for  the  confessionally  more  liberal 
English  Lutherans  of  the  old  General  Synod  to  influence 
these  independent  churches,  because  offense  was  taken  at 
their  prohibitory  practice  regarding  the  Christian  life 
(prohibition  movement,  Sabbath  observance).  The  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Synod  was  sufficiently  Germanic  and 
could  appeal  to  these  independents  by  finding  points  of 
contact  for  an  exercise  of  reformatory'-  influences  along 
ethical  as  well  as  doctrinal  lines. 

While  in  individual  cases  there  may  have  been  accom- 
modation to  and  toleration  of  liberalistic  views,  yet  as  a 
body  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  has  stood  opposed  to 
rationalism,  which  can  be  seen  from  many  of  its  utter- 
ances and  actions  in  the  earlier  years.  In  1865  it  sent  to 
Germany  a  unanimous  protest  against  Schenkel's  "Char- 
akterbild  Jesu."  In  1870  a  strong  condemnatory  resolu- 
tion was  passed  against  the  rationalistic  "Protestanten- 
verein"  abroad  and  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Not  even 
a  moderately  negative  theology  was  tolerated  in  the  syn- 
odical  seminary,  of  which  proof  was  given  about  1880 
when  a  very  talented  and  much  appreciated  teacher  in  the 
sem.inary  of  the  synod.  Prof.  E.  Otto,  was  forced  to  va- 
cate his  chair  because  of  insistence  upon  liberalistic 
views. ^ 

(b).  The  attitude  totvard  lodges  has  also  aided  the 
synod  in  its  growth.  The  field  of  the  synod  was  among 
the  Germans  and  the  German  Lutherans,  not  especially 
among  the  German  Reformed,  except  incidentally.  All 
the  stronger  German  Lutheran  bodies  started  out  with  an 
attitude  of  decided  opposition  to  the  lodge,  i.  e.,  to  those 
of  the  secret  societies  with  a  more  or  less  richly  developed 
religious  ritual.  They  saw  in  these  societies,  particularly 
in  the  naturalistic  and  universalistic  character  of  their 
religious  views  a  negation  of  the  positive  Christian  reli- 
gion and  an  influence  to  undermine  the  religion  of  the 
cross  and  the  preaching  of  sin  and  grace.     This  oppoei- 

9    See  Muecke,  Geschichte,  pp.  158  f . ;  208;  200  f. 


147 

tion  found  its  expression  in  refusing  church  membership, 
communion,  Christian  burial,  or  in  declining  on  the  part 
of  pastors  to  officiate  with  lodge  chaplains  at  the  same 
service.  The  German  Evangelical  Synod,  while  not  al- 
lowing ministers  to  be  lodge  members,  has  from  the  be- 
ginning opened  wide  the  gates  to  members  of  secret  so- 
cieties, and  its  pastors  haye  freely  officiated  at  their  fu- 
nerals, even  together  with  lodge  chaplains.  This  prac- 
tice, at  a  time  when  the  leading  Lutheran  synods  refused 
to  let  down  the  bars,  was  bound  to  make  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod  popular  in  lodge  circles  and  to  bring 
many  members  into  its  fold.^°  The  practice  of  the  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Synod  on  the  lodge  question  is  another 
symptom  of  its  broad-churchism  or  the  policy  of  willingly 
accommodating  itself  to  the  world  "for  the  purpose  of 
winning  the  world."  This  may  seem,  on  the  surface,  a 
Pauline  principle,  but  the  danger  is  in  the  application  of 
it.  (It  is  a  danger  which  confronts  all  the  churches  and 
synods  with  a  yielding  policy  touching  this  problem). 

lo  The  practice  among  the  Lutherans  of  to-day  on  this  prob- 
lem of  pastoral  theology  is  not  uniform.  The  stricter  synods,  such 
as  the  Synodical  Conference,  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  German  Iowa 
Synod  have  given  their  testimony  against  lodge  religion  in  the 
pulpit,  and  also  in  synodical  deliverances.  In  the  synods  forming 
the  United  Lutheran  Church  there  is  nowhere  and  there  never  was 
any  attempt  to  keep  lodge  members  out  of  the  Church.  A  good 
many  of  its  synods,  however  prohibit  their  ministers  from  mem- 
bership in  the  lodge,  and  the  aim  of  their  ministers  generally  is  to 
neutralize  the  influence  of  the  humanism  and  moralism  of  lodge 
religion  by  a  clear  preaching  of  the  Gospel  after  the  order  of  sal- 
vation as  taught  in  the  confessions  of  their  church.  But  the  pro- 
hibitory practice  of  the  stricter  bodies  with  regard  to  the  laymen 
are  not  followed  because  they  cannot  bear  to  see  so  many  Luth- 
erans abandoned  by  their  own  church.  Our  reference  here  is  to 
work  among  the  Germans.  It  has  often  been  pointed  out  with 
regard  to  lodge  membership,  that  there  is  a  characteristic  differ- 
ence between  native  Americans  and  the  Germans.  The  former 
are  less  inclined  to  let  their  lodge  membership  interfere  with 
their  attachment  to  the  Church;  but  many  Germans,  in  their  in- 
stinctive thoroughness,  and  need  for  consistency,  give  themselves 
with  heart  and  soul  to  the  humanistic  and  universalistic  spirit  of 
the  institution,  with  the  result  that  the  secret  society  takes  the 
place  of  the  Church  or  at  least  comes  first  in  their  attachment, 
and  that  it  leads  them  to  liberalism  in  which  the  religion  of  reve- 
lation is  looked  upon  as  an  expression  of  superstition.  By  this 
we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  this  is  the  case  with  all  Germans,  nor 
that  lodge  membership  cannot  have  the  same  effect  upon  the 
American  born. 


148 

(c).  Broad-churchism,  as  an  explanation  of  the 
growth  of  this  body,  can  also  be  seen  in  its  open  door  to 
the  more  worldly  elements  and  to  those  under  church  dis- 
cipline in  Lutheran  congregations. 

There  is  also  broad-churchism  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 
English  Lutheran  synods  and  congregations  in  particular, 
even  under  conservative  inflences,  give  large  liberties  to 
individual  members.  The  cases  for  church  discipline  are 
not  so  many  as  in  the  German  synods  and  congregations 
of  the  stricter  Lutheran  bodies.  Private  differences  be- 
tween church  members  especially  are  not  usually  consid- 
ered by  congregation  and  synod.  Such  matters  are  left 
to  the  pulpit  and  to  the  pastor's  personal  influence.  Dis- 
cipline, therefore,  is  limited  to  cases  of  unbelief 
and  flagrant  moral  transgression.  From  this  position  it" 
easily  follows  that  excommunication  from  a  German  con- 
gregation of  the  stricter  Lutheran  group  (except  in  case 
of  grave  sin)  is  not  looked  upon  as  a  hindrance  for  ad- 
mission, especially  not  when  a  transfer  of  membership  by 
letter  is  not  the  mutually  accepted  practice. 

Hence  it  can  easily  be  seen  what  the  German  Lutheran 
Synods  might  expect  of  an  opponent  like  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod.  Here,  position  was  taken  upon  the 
Union  principle.  This  means  that  in  cases  of  applica- 
tion for  admission  from  Lutheran  quarters  doctrinal 
questions  naturally  were  of  no  consideration.  In  mat- 
ters touching  the  Christian  life  there  was  the  funda- 
mental difference  of  practice,  of  which  we  are  reminded 
by  the  above  reference  to  English  Lutheranism.  But  in 
addition  it  must  be  said  that  in  many  localities  worldly 
elements  in  Lutheran  congregations  have  felt  themselves 
drawn  to  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  and  have  been 
freely  admitted.  Here  we  have  one  explanation  of  the 
growth  of  the  body. 

III.      THE  UNION  FEATURES  OF  THE  GERMAN  EVANGELICAL 

SYNOD. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  subject  which  must  claim 
the  chief  interest  in  this  chapter.     Our  series  of  discus- 


149 

sions  is  a  study  of  the  Union  principle  as  it  has  operated 
in  the  history  of  Protestantism,  especially  between  Luth- 
erans and  Reformed.  We  have  accordingly  summarized 
the  matters  of  interest  under  five  separate  theses:  (1) 
Objective  truth  and  subjective  conception;  (2)  Scripture 
opposed  to  the  Creed;  (3)  An  underestimation  of  the  dif- 
ferences between  Lutherans  and  Reformed;  (4)  The  pub- 
lic teaching  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod;  (5)  Its 
confessional  paragraph. 

1.  Objective  Truth  Opposed  to  Its  Subjective  Conception. 

The  fundamental  thought  at  the  basis  of  practically  all 
argumentation  in  favor  of  the  various  Union  features  of 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  is  the  distinction  which 
it  makes  between  truth  as  such  and  the  conception  of  it 
on  the  part  of  individuals  and  churches.  Schory  writes : 
"But  between  the  views  of  men,  which  they  have  of  truth, 
and  truth  itself,  there  is  a  great  difference.  There  can  be 
various  conceptions  of  truth  of  which  each  in  its  kind  is 
justified,  because  each  of  them  has  been  gained  from  a 
different  point  of  view.  For  truth  is  not  one-sided,  but 
many-sided."'^  The  argument  is  that  in  their  confessional 
differences  neither  the  Lutherans  nor  the  Reformed  can 
claim  to  have  the  truth.  Sometimes  it  is  suggested  in  the 
Union  circles  that  while  both  have  the  truth,  the  differ- 
ence is  in  view-points;  that  the  contradictions  are  not 
real,  but  only  seeming;  that  one  view  supplements  the 
other.  Then  again  it  is  admitted  that  there  are  real  con- 
tradictions, real  differences,  but  in  the  manner  of  Calix- 
tus,^-  it  is  insisted  that  these  are  not  of  a  religious  nature, 
and,  therefore,  not  fundamental.  While  Calixtus  admit- 
ted that  actual  church  union  is  impossible  as  long  as 
there  is  disagreement  only  in  non-fundamentals  among 
which  he  counted  the  Lord's  Supper,^''  now  the  position  is 

11  Translated  from  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Evanglischen 
Synode,  p.  7.  Cf.  Bruenning,  Fundamentals  I,  p.  2.  Denkschrift 
zum  50  jaehrigen  Jubilaeum,  p.  lo. 

12  See  chapter  IV,  pp.  86  ff.  Cf.  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July  1919, 
pp.  369  flf. 

13  See  chapter  IV,  p.  95.    Cf.  Luth.  Quarterly,  /uly  1919,  p.  375. 


150 

taken  that  these  can  be  ignored  even  in  an  organic  union 
so  long  as  there  is  agreement  in  the  fundamentals. 

Note  1 :  Hehe  again,  then,  there  is  before  us  the  ques- 
tion :  What  is  fundamental  in  religion,  and  as  such  suffi- 
cient for  Church  union?  To  the  solution  of  this  problem 
theologians  and  churchmen  of  many  ages  have  given 
much  thought,  usually,  however,  with  the  result  of  find- 
ing that  their  conclusions  yielded  little  practical  result  as 
a  basis  for  union. ^*  It  was  the  problem  of  George  Ca- 
lixtus.  Frederick  William  III  desired  his  Union  to  be  es- 
tablished upon  "the  principal  points  in  Christianity."^^ 
The  Evangelical  Alliance,  organized  in  1846  and  founded 
upon  nine  fundamental  articles,'^  was  another  attempt  to 
establish  the  fundamentals.  We  may  also  refer  to  the 
far-reaching  union  plans  of  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker,^^  and  to 
the  endeavors  of  the  Union  theologians  of  Germany  in  the 
middle  of  the  last  century  (Mueller,  Dorner,  Nitzsch), 
who  demanded  that  the  Prussian  Church  Union  should  be 
established  upon  what  is  religiously  fundamental.^*  None 
of  these  attempts  brought  any  permanent  result. 

Note  2 :  It  was  particularly  the  distinction  between 
religion  and  theology  among  the  theologians  who  fol- 
lowed Scheiermacher  that  furnished  the  basis  upon  which 
the  Union  was  argued.  This  distinction  was  firSt  de- 
veloped by  George  Calixtus,"  but  the  pupils  of  Schleier- 
macher  renewed  it  with  much  energy  and  in  a  peculiar 
way.  The  substance  of  truth  only,  so  we  were  told,  is  re- 
ligion proper,  and  this  is  received  by  "intuition."  The 
presentation  in  discursive  thought,  ("diskursivem  Den- 
ken")  is  theology  which  is  subject  to  error,  and  can 
never  adaquately  express  divine  truth.  In  our  discus- 
sion of  "Jena  versus  Wittenberg"^"   our  attention  was 

14  Cf.  pp.  70,  75,  76,  86,  90,  93,  95,  98.  Lutheran  Quarterly,  April, 
1919,  pp.  219,  224,  225 ;  July,  1919,  369,  371,  374,  367,  379. 

15  Cf.  chapter  V,  p.  119,  Lutheran  Quarterly,  October,  1919, 
P-  534- 

16  See  Meusel,  Kirchliches  Handlexikon  I,  89.     R.  E.,  I,  377  f. 

17  Neve,  Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  2nd 
ed.,  p.  114. 

18  Cf.  p.  131 ;  in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  October  1919,  p.  546. 

19  See  pp.  86  f.,  91  ff.,  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  369  f.,  372  flf. 

20  See  pp.  107  ff.,  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1919,  pp.  388  flf. 


151 

called  to  the  legitimate  element  in  this  distinction  be- 
tween religion  and  theology.  Certainly,  theological  de- 
duction can  be  carried  into  such  finenesses  that  it  can  no 
more  be  identified  with  fundamental  religion.  We  have 
an  illustration  of  it  in  the  "Consensus  Repetitus"  of 
Abraham  Calovius  (p.  107),  and  even  in  the  larger  Con- 
fessions of  both  Lutherans  and  Reformed  there  may  be 
matters  that  cannot  claim  to  be  more  than  theologumena. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  very  much  of  what  forms  the  con- 
tents of  our  Creeds  and  which  undeniably  is  not  purely 
religious  "intuition,"  but  pre-eminently  "discursive 
thought",  is,  after  all,  inseparable  from  religion.  We 
cannot  have  religion  as  pure  intuition ;  the  expression  of 
it  has  to  be  in  discursive  thought.  Theological  concep- 
tions, so  long  as  they  are  not  hair-splitting  subtleties, 
are  the  necessary  expression  of  religious  intuition.  Even 
the  thoughts  of  God  as  delivered  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
are  not  without  something  of  the  discursive  element.-^ 
The  statements  in  the  Confessions  which  express  the 
difference  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed 
churches  may  be  theological  in  character,  but  they  stand 
in  the  closest  relation  to  religion.  They  give  individuali- 
ty, precision  and  aim  to  the  religious  idea.  "The  very 
form  grips  or  coins  the  thought  in  a  peculiar  way ;  it  ex- 
presses the  thought  once  for  all.  The  form  limits  the 
confessional  thought  and  determines  its  direction.  It 
keeps  the  thought  (Idee)  from  associating  heteroge- 
neous elements,  and  so  to  run  into  seed."--  Julius  Stahl 
says  of  these  discursive  elements  in  the  Creeds:  "Sie 
gehoeren  der  Religion  an,  sie  tragen  den  Glaubensgehalt. 
Sie  sind  notwendig,  sowohl  um  die  Anschauungen  zu 
verdeutlichen,  uns  zum  ganzen  Bewusstsein  zu  bringen, 
als  noch  mehr,  um  sie  gegen  Ausgleitung  und  Verirrung 
zu  wahren  und  un  das  gegenseitige  gemeinsame  Ver- 


21  The  fact  is  that  the  Union  theologians  in  Germany,  in  em- 
ploying that  distinction  between  intuition  and  discursive  thought, 
dismissed  essential  parts  of  the  Scriptures  from  obligation  at  the 
ordination  of  ministers.  See  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta  I,  Book  6, 
pp.  294  fT. ;  Stahl,  Luth.  Kirche  und  Union,  pp.  383-87. 

22  Dr.  Stier  in  "Allgemeine  Ev.  Luth.  Kirchenzeltung,"  quoted 
in  Neve,  Introduction  to  Lutheran  Symbolics,  p.  28. 


152 

staendnis  unter  den  Menschen  herauszustellen.  Sie  sind 
deshalb  gerade  das  Wesen  und  die  Aufgabe  des  kirchli- 
chen  Bekenntnisses."-^ 

It  was  necessary  to  interpose  these  two  notes  in  order 
to  throw  some  sidelights  upon  the  suggestion  of  Schory 
as  quoted  above. 

We  admit  that  divine  truth  cannot  be  expressed  with 
adequacy  inhuman  speech,  as  we  read  I  Cor.  13:12: 
"For  now  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly;  but  then  face 
to  face.  Now  I  know  in  part ;  but  then  shall  I  know  even 
as  also  I  am  known."  But  inadequate  conceptions  need 
not  be  identical  with  error !  While  not  adequate  in  every 
respect  they  may  rest  upon  Scripture,  be  divinely  true 
as  far  as  they  go,  and  sufficient  for  the  need  of  the 
Church.  In  principle,  the  Creed  cannot  claim  infallibi- 
lity ;  but  the  convinced  member,  especially  the  teacher  of 
the  Church,  as  long  as  he  confesses  the  Creed  conscienti- 
ously, believes  that  it  expresses  the  truth  of  Scripture — 
not  necessarily  the  full  truth  as  it  exists  in  the  mind  of 
God,  yet  truth  as  revealed  by  Scripture  and  as  exi)eri- 
enced  in  the  life  of  His  Church. 

But  can  we  not  say  that  the  differences  between  the 
churches  consist  only  in  view-points,  so  that  both  sides 
have  the  truth  from  a  different  point  of  view?  It  is 
true,  for  instance,  that  many  churches  accept  with  the 
Lutherans  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  But 
some  regard  it  from  a  peculiar  view-point,  the  sov- 
ereignty of  God.  This  does  not  do  away  with  the  Gospel, 
yet  the  Gospel  of  free  grace  becomes  clouded  (legalism). 
Under  Calvinistic  preaching,  God  appears  to  us  more  as 
a  stem  Lord  than  as  a  loving  Father.  We  are  more  His 
obedient  servants  than  His  confiding  children.  A  wrong 
view-point  can  seriously  affect  the  teaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel. But  the  difference  is  not  always  just  in  view-points. 
This  can  be  seen  when  we  take,  for  instance,  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  the  means  of  grace  in  general.  Here  the 
difference  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  group 

23    Lutherische  Kirche  und  Union,  p.  345. 


153 

of  churches  is  exclusive  as  we  shall  try  to  show  in  an- 
other discussion  (Sub.  III.  3).  Many  differences  be- 
tween the  churches  are  of  such  a  nature  that  in  the  light 
of  the  Scriptures  either  the  one  or  the  other  side  must 
be  wrong  in  its  conception  of  Scripture  truth 

2.      Scripture  versus  Confession. 

The  German  Evangelical  Synod  is  not  opposed  to  con- 
fessional standards.    Officially    it    does    not    desire    to 
stand  upon  the  platform  of  the  Campbellites.    The  Augs- 
burg Confession,  Luther's  Catechism  and  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism    are    accepted    in    the    points    "where    they 
agree."-*    "In  these  books  we  have  the  Bible  doctrine  as 
free  from  error,  misunderstanding  or  imperfection  as 
man  can  make  it.    Therefore  we  hold  to  them,  placing 
them  next  to,  but  below  the  Bible  in  point  of  importance, 
in  the  matter  of  the  regulation  of  our  faith.       And  as 
proof  of  our  allegiance  to  the  Bible,  we  claim  the  privi- 
lege of  going  back  to  the  precious  Word  itself  in  those 
points  in  which  these  books  do  not  perfectly  agree."^'' 
But  this  refusal  to  make  a  doctrinal  profession  on  the 
matters  where  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed  Confessions 
disagree,  and  the  insistence  here  to  use  simply  the  ex- 
pressions of  Scripture  without  interpreting  them  con- 
fessionally,   have   brought  into   the   literature  and   the 
preaching  of  the  synod  the  peculiar  Union  feature  of  op- 
posing Scripture  to  the  Confessions.    "Be  it  said  again, 
the  Word  of  God  is  our  standard  of  faith.     This  is  evi- 
denced by  our  name,  the  Evangelical,  the  Gospel  Church. 
Others  may  call  themselves  Lutheran  after  a  man;  Re- 
formed because  of  some  incident  in  history ;  Episcopal  or 
Presbyterian  because  of  a  form  of  government,  or  Bap- 
tist after  one  of  the  Sacraments,  we  know  nothing  su- 
perior to  the  Bible."=^«    Neither  do  the  Lutherans  and  the 

24  The  confessional  paragraph  is  quoted  sub  III,  5  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  discussion. 

25  Bruening  in  Fundamentals  I,  pp.  21  f. 
a6    Fundamentals  I,  p.  21 ;  cf.  p.  3. 


154 


Reformed  know  anything  "superior  to  the  Bible,"  but  as 
a  church  they  interpret  the  Word  of  God,  and  for  the 
guidance  of  the  souls  under  their  care  they  express  this 
interpretation  confessionally. 

This  position  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod,  in- 
viting as  it  may  seem  on  the  surface,  leads  to  the  re- 
jection of  the  Creed  in  principle.  If  by  appealing  to 
uninterpreted  Scripture,  the  differences  between  Luther- 
ans and  Reformed  are  to  be  treated  as  open  questions, 
why  should  it  be  otherwise  with  the  matters  of  agreement 
with  regard  to  the  doctrinal  differences  which  were 
settled  in  the  adoption  of  the  Nicene  Creed?  In  other 
words,  why  should  the  matters  of  agreement  in  the  Lu- 
theran and  the  Reformed  Confessions  have  symbolical 
significance?  As  soon  as  the  principle  of  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod  is  admitted,  it  would  seem  that  the 
position  of  the  Campbellites  is  the  unavoidable  conse- 
quence. That  out  of  the  above  statements  our  questions 
suggest  themselves  can  be  seen  from  a  large  and  very 
ably  written  literature,  in  articles  and  tracts,  that  has 
sprung  -up  in  the  German  Evangelical  Synod.  The 
tenure  of  this  literature  is  about  this :  From  Luther  and 
Calvin  we  must  come  back  to  the  Scriptures.  These, 
with  freedom  of  interpretation  according  to  the  dictates 
of  conscience,  constitute  a  sufficient  basis  for  church 
union.2'  That  literature  in  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod  is  not  official  in  nature;  it  does  not  bear  the  im- 
primatur of  the  synodical  publication  house,  and,  there- 
fore, should  not  be  taken  as  expressing  the  synod's  offi- 
cial doctrinal  position.  But  it  shows  the  conclusions  that 
are  drawn  from  the  synod's  confessional  paragraph  by 
thinking  members  of  the  body.  We  have  here  special 
reference  to  two  very  ably  written  booklets,  one  by  W. 
Koch,  "Wie  lange  hinket  ihr  auf  beiden  Seiten,"  the 
other    by    H,    Niefer,    "Evangelisch    und    Lutherisch?" 

27  It  is  true  there  must  be  freedom  of  conscience  for  every  in- 
dividual. But  is  it  of  no  interest  to  a  Lutheran  or  Reformed  con- 
gregation or  synod  when  an  individual,  repudiating  his  ordination 
vow,  should  make  such  use  of  his  freedom  that  his  work  would  re- 
sult in  confusing  his  flock  and  disrupting  their  union  in  the  faith? 


155 


Koch  sees  the  weakness  of  his  synod's  confessional  basis 
in  this  that  it  adopts  the  above-mentioned  doctrinal  stand- 
ards in  the  points  of  their  agreement.  He  calls  it  a  con- 
tradiction to  the  "manly  and  evangelical"  appeal  to  the 
Word  of  God  alone  and  a  concession  to  confessionalism 
(pp.  14.15).  The  evil  "fruits  of  confessionalism"  (error 
in  the  Roman  Church,  controversy  and  schism  among 
Protestants)  are,  in  his  view,  "the  natural  consequences 
of  the  fact  that  nowhere  one  was  satisfied  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  alone;  that  not  the  Scriptures  themselves,  but 
the  subjective  conception  of  a  man  or  a  number  of  men 
was  made  the  object  of  confession,  the  norm  of  faith,  of 
doctrine  and  life."  (p.  16) .  "The  Word  of  God  only,  not 
what  men  have  drawn  from  the  Word  of  God  and  have 
formulated  and  interpreted  and  individualized  in  human 
fashion,  can  be  the  object  of  evangelical  faith"  (p.  18). 
Niefer  likewise  censures  the  Lutherans  who  "read  and 
interpret  the  Bible  strictly  after  the  traditions  of  the 
symbols"  which  "settle  the  teaching  (of  the  Bible)  once 
for  all  (endgiltig)"  (p.  13).^®  After  having  rejected 
the  Confessions  as  symbols  of  Scripture  truth  (pp.  13, 
14),  he  appeals  to  the  right  of  the  individual  to  investi- 
gate the  Scriptures  for  himself,  as  Luther  and  the  Re- 
formers did  (pp.  15,  16).  Here  the  author  is  perfectly 
right.  It  is  a  right  which  Lutherans  also  claim,  even 
with  their  quia  subscription,  as  we  shall  see  a  little  later. 
But  the  question  that  can  not  be  left  out  of  consideration 


28  The  author  of  this  book  is  too  anxious  to  put  his  readers 
under  the  impression  that  the  Lutherans  accept  the  confessions 
slavishly,  with  no  distinction  between  creative  principles  on  the 
one  hand  and  theological  deductions  and  elaborations  on  the 
other,  and  that  they  look  upon  the  Creed  as  settling-  a  doctrine  in 
such  a  way  that  further  development  and  enrichment  is  excluded. 
He,  like  a  good  many  other  writers  in  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod,  makes  the  mistake  of  judging  too  much  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  to-day  by  the  seventeenth  century  type  of  Lutheran- 
ism.  While  this  type  may  have  its  representatives  to-day,  it  ought 
not  to  be  overlooked  that  the  Lutheranism  of  men  like  Philippi, 
Vilmar,  Loehe,  Kliefoth,  Rohnert,  Krauth,  Lutheradt,  Kahnis,  Zet- 
schwitz.  Bard,  Ihmels — all  opponents  of  the  Union — is  in  view- 
points essentially  different  from  the  Lutheranism  that  was  repre- 
sented by  Abraham  Calvovius  and  the  Wittenberg  theologians  of 
the  seventeenth  century. 


156 

is  whether  the  Church,  not  the  individual, — but  the 
Church  as  a  "congregation  of  believers"  can  fulfill  its 
mission  without  a  common  Creed,  a  recognized  symbol 
of  unity,  according  to  the  demand :  "One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  Baptism."  The  mistake  here  made  is  to  look  upon 
the  Confession  too  much  as  an  interest  of  the  individual 
and  not  as  a  concern  of  the  Church.  Advice  is  given  to 
the  soul  to  rid  itself  of  all  confessional  traditionalism 
and  to  seek  truth  simply  by  reading  the  Bible.^^  But 
when  confessional  obligation  is  under  discussion  we 
must  have  regard  to  the  needs  of  the  Church,  which  is 
charged  with  the  duty  of  leading  many  souls  in  the  way 
of  salvation:  by  ministerial  education,  by  publishing 
church  literature,  by  sending  forth  missionaries.  Here 
a  doctrinal  foundation  or  a  confessional  basis  is  needed 
for  decision  and  direction.  To  be  sure,  the  Church  as 
well  as  the  individual  must  stand  for  the  Scriptures  first 
of  all.  The  Scriptures  are  the  Church's  real  foundation. 
A  Church  stands  on  the  Creed  only  in  so  far  (quatenus) 
as  that  Creed  actually  expresses  the  truth  of  Scripture. 
But  a  church,  if  it  wants  to  claim  the  Scriptures  as  its 
real  foundation,  cannot  do  it  by  leaving  the  Scriptures 
uninterpreted.  On  church-dividing  questions  such  as 
exist  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  the 
Scriptures  must  be  confessionally  interpreted.  Appeal 
to  the  Scriptures  while  at  the  same  time  refusing  con- 
fessional interpretation  is  purely  negative.  The  posi- 
tion upon  the  Scriptures,  in  such  case,  would  be  a  posi- 
tion taken  merely  in  abstracto  and  not  in  concreta. 

Men  of  the  Union  like  to  look  upon  the  Creeds  as  mere 
guides  in  the  search  of  truth,  which  make  no  claim  of 

29  See  Niefer,  pp.  16-18.  Cf.  Koch,  pp.  19-20.  It  is  true  that 
Lutheran  Christians  (of  which  there  are  many  in  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod)  incline  to  read  their  Bible  through  the  inter- 
pretation of  their  catechism  and  through  the  conceptions  ex- 
pressed in  the  devotional  literature  of  their  church  (hymn-books, 
prayer-books),  w^hile  the  Christians  of  most  of  the  other  churches 
— particularly  the  churches  who  make  little  or  no  use  of  cate- 
chization — go  to  the  Bible  direct  and  search  independently  of 
creedal  traditions.  But  on  which  side  is  the  real  advantage?  Where 
are  the  Scriptures  most  interpreted  according  to  the  "analogy  of 
faith,"  or  the  "proportion  of  faith,"  as  Paul  demands  (Rom.  12:6?) 


157 

being  standards  to  be  subscribed  to  with  confessional  ob- 
ligation. They  are  guides  ("witnesses,"  so  even  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord),  and  as  such  they  have  served 
many  thoughtful  Christians,  especially  the  teachers  of 
the  Church.  But  they  are  at  the  same  time  more  than 
guides.  As  witnesses  and  testimonies  of  times  in  the 
history  of  the  Church  when,  usually  after  severe  and 
trying  conflicts,  God  gave  much  light,  they  are  also  sym- 
bols of  the  unity  of  faith  between  those  who  have  united 
in  one  church  communion.  We  believe  that  this  is  also 
the  conception  of  the  conservative  members  of  the  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Synod  when  they  profess  to  accept  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  Luther's  and  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  in  the  matters  of  their  agreement;  but  we 
also  believe  that  in  the  refusal  to  take  a  confessional  at- 
titude on  the  historical  differences  between  the  Luther- 
ans and  the  Reformed,  the  synod  has  created  suspicion 
of  creeds  in  general,  since  their  consistent  thinkers  put 
the  Confession  in  opposition  to  the  Scriptures. 

There  are  two  related  questions  that  call  for  a  brief 
discussion  in  this  connection;  these  we  shall  dispose  of 
in  two  appended  notes. 

Note   1 :      The   quatenus   and   the   quia   subscription. 
On  this  subject  many  writers  of  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod  have  offered  reflections  in  which  they  have  not 
done  justice  to  confessional  Lutheranism.    The  question 
asked  is  whether  the  Creed  should  be  accepted  and  sub- 
scribed because   (quia),  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  agrees 
with  the  Scriptures,  or  only  in  so  far  as  (quatenus)  the 
subscriber  finds  that  it  does  agree  with  the  Word  of  God. 
Our  answer  is  that  the  quia  and  the  quatenus  go  to- 
gether.   The  Scriptures  are  norma  normans.    They  are 
the  only  regulating  factor  in  all  matters  of  religion.    A 
creed  can  claim  authority  only  in  so  far  as  it  expresses 
Scripture  truth.     But,  on  the  other  hand,  as  has  been 
said  already,  in  cases  of  conflict  between   confessions, 
especially  on  matters  pertaining  to  salvation,  Scripture 
cannot  be  left  uninterpreted.    An  attitude  has  to  be  tak- 
en.   A  church,  entrusted  with  the  spiritual  care  of  many 
souls,  needs  to  take  a  definite  position  in  order  to  guide 


158 

in  Scriptural  teaching  and  to  offer  a  bond  of  union  for 
her  members.  In  an  accepted  Creed  the  Church 
establishes  itself  upon  articles  of  faith,  of  which  she  is 
convinced  that  in  their  confessional  substance  they  have 
been  formulated  in  harmony  with  Scripture  testimony. 
She  can  take  this  position  with  assurance  because  she  has 
experienced  the  Scripturalness  of  that  Creed  during  a 
long  history  of  preaching  and  teaching  and  caring  for 
souls  in  many  congregations.  And  now,  a  church,  so 
established  upon  a  Creed,  has  certainly  the  right  and  the 
duty  to  expect  of  her  candidates  for  the  ministry  at  their 
ordination  something  more  than  a  mere  quatenus  de- 
claration (with  which  one  could  subscribe  even  the  de- 
crees of  the  council  of  Trent) .  At  the  time  of  their  en- 
tering the  ministry,  after  the  completion  of  their  semin- 
ary course,  they  must  be  able  to  express  a  judgment  on 
the  Creed  which  they  have  studied  and  be  ready  to  say 
whether  they  can  or  whether  they  cannot  accept  its  con- 
tents. So  the  candidate  for  the  ministry,  in  the  Lutheren 
Church,  declares  that  he  accepts  the  Church's  Confession 
because  (quia)  of  its  agreement  with  Scripture. 

Two  objections  to  this  practice  may  here  be  answered 
by  quoting  from  our  discussion  of  the  "authority  of  sym- 
Ibols"  in  the  "Introduction  to  Lutheran  Symbolics,"  p.  25 
i. :  (1)  Can  we  expect  a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  as  a 
rule  a  young  man  who  has  just  come  from  the  seminary, 
to  be  sufficiently  matured  for  a  quia  subscription?  He 
certainly  ought  to  be  familiar  with  the  leading  principles 
of  comparative  symbolics.  Further,  let  us  remember 
that  Lutheranism  as  expressed  in  its  Confessions  is  a 
system  that  rests  upon  some  fundamental  articles  of 
faith.^"  If  the  candidate  for  ordination  is  in  harmony 
with  Lutheranism  in  such  fundamentals — along  the  line 
of  anthropology  (Augb'g  Conf.,  II,  XVIII),  soteriology 
(III,  IV,  VI,),  ecclesiology  (VII,  VIII,  XIV),  the  means 
of  grace  (V,  IX,  XIII),  etc. — then  he  can  subscribe  with 
a   quia.     The  doctrines  more  remote  from  the  centre 

30    Romanism,  Calvinism,  and  Socinianism  also  show  their  lead- 
ing features  in  a  number  of  characteristic  principles. 


159 

have  been  formulated  in  entire  agreement  with  the  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  Confession.  (2)  Another  ob- 
jection is  that  the  quia  subscription  enslaves  the  indi- 
vidual minister,  robs  him  of  his  God-given  right  to  ex- 
amine the  Scriptures  for  himself  and  practically  does 
away  with  the  freedom  of  conscience.  But  this  objection 
confuses  the  situation  and  by  so  doing  leads  to  wrong 
conclusions.  For  him  who  has  taken  his  ordination  vow 
with  a  quia,  the  duty  to  regard  the  Scriptures  as  su- 
preme judge  in  all  matters  of  faith  never  ceases.  If  ever 
his  conviction  should  undergo  a  change,  leading  him  to 
feel  that  he  must  change  his  public  teaching  accordingly, 
then  his  quia  obligation  ceases.  No  mortal  has  any  au- 
thority to  interfere  with  the  right  of  private  judgment 
and  with  the  freedom  of  conscience.  But  in  such  a  case, 
denominational  honesty,  or,  better  expressed,  his  con- 
science, should  move  him  to  withdraw  and  to  join  the 
church  which  expresses  his  new  faith.  Luther's  protest 
to  Rome  cannot  be  invoked  to  justify  an  opposite  prac- 
tice. Luther  occupied  the  correct  position  that  not  he, 
but  Rome  had  departed  from  the  Apostolic  and  truly 
Catholic  faith.  Moreover,  if  by  "right  of  private  judg- 
ment" and  "freedom  of  conscience"  he  should  have 
meant  what  our  liberalists  of  to-day  make  it  to  mean, 
namely,  unrestricted  liberty  to  teach  doctrines  subver- 
sive of  the  faith  of  the  Church,  would  he  have  interfered 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Antinomians?  Would  he  have 
forced  Agricola  to  that  public  disputation  in  Wittenberg 
and  to  the  retraction  of  his  views?  In  a  given  church 
and  communion  an  individual  cannot  claim  the  right  to 
tear  down  what  the  Church  teaches  on  the  basis  of  her 
Confessions.  In  his  defence  of  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment and  the  freedom  of  conscience  Luther  meant  that 
no  one  should  lose  life  and  liberty  when  unable  to  agree 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  Of  the  practice  of 
Rome  he  complained :  "Mit  dem  Tode  loesen  sie  alle  Ar- 
gument." And  again :  "Heresy  can  never  be  restrained 
with  force.  It  must  be  grasped  in  another  way.  This  is 
not  the  sort  of  batle  that  can  be  settled  with  the  sword. 


160 

The  weapon  here  to  be  used  is  God's  Word.  If  that  does 
not  decide,  the  decision  will  not  be  effected  by  worldly 
force,  though  it  should  drench  the  whole  earth  with 
blood.  Heresy  is  a  thing  of  the  soul ;  no  steel  can  cut  it 
out,  no  waters  can  drown  it.  God's  Word  alone  can  de- 
stroy it."^^ 

Note  2:  Lutheranism  is  said  to  believe  in  "unalter- 
able Confessions/'^''  The  basis  for  this  charge  evident- 
ly is  in  the  fact  that  in  the  history  of  Lutheranism  there 
has  been  considerable  discussion  of  the  "unaltered" 
Augsburg  Confession  as  contrasted  with  the  "Variata." 
We  shall  not  here  go  into  the  details  of  this  much-venti- 
lated question.^3  All  we  need  to  say  is  that  the  Lutheran 
Church  objected  to  the  altered  edition  of  1540  and  its 
successors,  because  of  the  introduction  of  two  very  far- 
reaching  principles,  the  Bucero-Calvinistic  in  Article  X 
(on  the  Lord's  Supper)  and  the  synergistic  in  Art. 
XVIII  (on  Free- Will),  both  of  which,  if  they  had  been 
adopted,  would  have  changed  the  doctrinal  character  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.  Melanchthon's  Variata  proved  to 
be  an  instrument  for  the  introduction  of  Calvinism  into 
Germany  (Cf.  Chapter  II).  If  it  had  not  been  for  those 
two  anti-Lutheran  principles,  Melanchthon's  altered  edi- 
tions would  have  been  welcomed  because  of  their  richer 
Scripture  ground.  Our  present  Nicene  Creed  also  is  an 
entirely  different  document  from  the  original  Nicene 
Creed,"*  Luther  himself  changed  the  text  of  the  Smal- 
cald  Articles.^^  Because  of  the  serious  recognition  of 
the  Scriptures  as  normans.  Creeds  are  in  principle  not 
"unalterable"  in  the  Lutheran  Church,    Neither  are  they 

31  Luthers  Werke,  by  Buchwald  et  al.,  VII,  p.  258.  On  the 
whole  question  of  the  quia  and  quatenus  subscription  see  the 
article  on  "Orthodoxie"  in  R.  E.  XVI,  p-  496,  38;  also  on  "Homi- 
letik"  VIII,  p.  303,  20. 

32  Niefer,  as  cited,  p.  13. 

33  For  an  extensive  discussion  see  Zoeckler,  Die  Augsburgische 
Konfession,  pp.  35-74;  Kolde's  preface  to  Mueller's  Symbolische 
Buecher,  pp.  25-32;  Neve,  Introduction  Luth.  Symbolics,  pp.  91- 
100;  also  his  monography:  "Are  we  Justified  in  the  Distinction 
between  an  Altered  and  an  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession?" 

34  See  Harnack  in  R.  E.  XI,  pp.  12  flf. 

35  Neve,  Symbolics,  pp.  347  f. 


161 

meant  to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  further  development  of 
Christian  doctrine.  It  is  felt,  however,  that  such  devel- 
opment will  be  sane  only  when  it  takes  place  on  the  basis 
of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  oecumenical  and 
the  Reformation  Creeds.  Lutheranism  sees  in  its  histor- 
ical Confessions  an  embodiment  of  the  doctrinal  experi- 
ence of  the  Church  of  Christ;  they  are  not  arbitrary  or 
artificial  inventions.  Liberalism  has  always  wanted  to 
erect  a  fundamentally  new  faith  upon  the  ruins  of  the 
historic  Creeds.  As  compared  with  the  Reformed 
Church  it  may  be  admitted  that  Lutheranism  is  conser- 
vative with  regard  to  adopted  Creeds.  Her  Confessions 
— she  prefers  the  term  "Symbols" — are  the  same  in  all 
countries;  the  Reformed  "Confessions"  are  more  or  less 
national  in  character  (in  the  various  countries  the  fol- 
lowers of  Calvin  and  Zwingli  confess  for  themselves). 
The  Reformed  churches  have  been  more  subjective  in 
their  tendencies,  which  can  also  be  seen  in  the  history  of 
their  Confessions.  Particularly  in  America  they  have  been 
fruitful  in  altering  their  Confessions  and  in  producing 
new  creedal  standards.^*'  But  this  subjectivism  and  indi- 
vidualism is  no  advantage  for  the  Church  as  a  whole. 
Dr.  L.  F.  Gruber,  in  an  excellent  article  in  the  "Luther- 
an Church  Review"  (April  1918,  p.  145),  remarks:  "Re- 
formed Protestantism  over-exalts  individualism,  and 
therefore  tends  to  rationalism  and  revolutionary  radi- 
calism  Her  very  history  is  the  history  of  sectarian- 
ism. And  it  seems  that  in  order  to  survive  she  must  di- 
vide more  and  more  into  sects  and  sectlets  by  throwing 
off  branches,  even  as  a  protozoan  throws  off  joints  in  or- 
der to  continue  its  existence  in  continual  segementation 
and  division."  Is  there  one  sect  in  the  history  of  Pro- 
testantism, of  which  it  can  be  said  that  it-  sprung  from  a 
special  principle  of  Lutheranism?  The  Schwenkfeldians, 
the  Moravians,  the  Swedenborgians  originated  on  Lu- 
theran territory,  but  can  they  be  called  legitimate 
daughters  of  Lutheranism?    The  last  mentioned  sect  is 

36    See    the    very    instructive    article    on    "Protestantismus"    by 
Kattenbusch,  in  R.  E.  XVI,  pp.  173,  5  ff.,  and  165,  51. 


162 

certainly  excluded.  The  Schwenkfeldians  belonged  to  the 
"Sacramentarians"  of  the  Reformed  period.  The  Mora- 
vians represent  a  kind  of  a  union  between  Lutherans 
and  Reformed.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  dis- 
tinguishing trait  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed.  It 
seems  that  Lutheranism  completely  expressed  its  own 
genius  in  Symbols,  and  found  no  cause  for  changing 
them,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  it  produced  no  more  symbols 
after  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Concord  in  1580. 
Yet  we  must  insist  that  in  principle  these  symbols  are 
neither  "unalterable"  nor  are  they — in  principle — the 
last  word  of  Lutheranism  as  to  further  creedai  expres- 
sion. 

3.     An   Under-Estimation  of  the  Diffe7'ences  Between 
Lutherans  and  Reformed. 

In  perusing  the  literature  of  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod  one  receives  the  impression  that  the  differences 
between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed,  doctrinal  and 
practical,  are  not  sufficiently  appreciated. 

(A)  The  difference  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  spoken 
of  as  the  only  one,  and  it  is  in  no  sense  considered  as  a 
hindrance  to  union.  Schory  says:  "The  Reformed 
Church  as  well  as  the  Lutheran  teaches  that  the  Holy 
Supper  is  not  merely  a  memorial,  but  a  gift  of  grace. 
The  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  prove  sufficiently  that 
in  the  holy  Supper  more  is  received  than  just  bread  and 
wine,  namely,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  of  course  as  a  spiritual  food  and  a  spiritual  drink, 
for  the  strengthening  of  the  faith  and  for  the  confirming 
of  the  soul  in  following  the  Lord.  If  now  the  views  of 
the  two  churches  differ  on  the  question  of  'how'  this 
spiritual  gift  is  mediated — and  this  is  admitted —  so  it 
is  to  be  remarked  that  here  we  are  confronted  with  a  di- 
vine mystery  which  neither  the  Lutherans  nor  the  Re- 
formed have  explained  nor  can  explain.  Regarding  this 
♦how' — and  here  we  have  the  only  difficulty- — the  Evan- 
gelical Church  insists  upon  freedom  of  conscience  for 


163 

the  individual.  In  her  confessional  paragraph  she  says : 
"With  respect  to  that  how  you  may  hold  to  the  Lutheran 
and  to  the  Reformed  conception,  according  as,  in  your 
own  judgment,  the  one  or  the  other  view  approaches 
best  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  only  do  not  make  your  view  the 
shibboleth  of  a  division,  but  grant  the  other  man  who 
holds  the  opposing  view,  the  same  liberty,  which  you 
claim  for  yourself."  (Geschichte,  p.  8).  But  these 
words  show  an  under-estimation  of  the  difference  on  this 
subject,  not  to  speak  of  the  fundamental  difference  in 
doctrine  and  life,  pf  which  this  one  difference  is  only  a 
symptom. 

Let  us  state  as  briefly  as  possible  what  the  Church  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  teaches.  Proceeding  from  a 
realistic  conception  of  the  words  of  Christ  when  he  in- 
stituted the  Supper,^^  she  teaches  that  in,  with  and 
under  the  bread  and  wine,  as  vehicles  and  means,  the 
**truly  present"  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Saviour  are  re- 
ceived cum  ore  by  all  who  eat  and  drink — for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  the  nourishing  of  the  spiritual  life 
of  the  believer;  for  judgment  to  the  unbeliever  and  un- 
worthy. The  Church  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and 
the  whole  family  of  Reformed  churches,  chiefly  on  the 
basis  of  a  spiritualistic  interpretation  of  the  words  of 
institution,  but  also  by  declaring  that  earthly,  created, 
finite  things  cannot  be  used  for  the  communication  of 
things  heavenly,  spiritual  and  infinite,  reject  this  Lu- 
theran teaching  from  beginning  to  end.  In  describing 
the  teaching  of  the  Reformed  Church  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  we  cannot  content  ourselves  with  a  definition. 

Calvin  constructed  his  symbolical  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist  upon  the  basis  of  a  number  of  analogies  be- 
tween the  Supper  (its  elements  and  the  use  of  it)  and 
the  spiritual  features  that  suggest  themselves.^^  We  shall 

37  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  in  their  reports,  have  the  identi- 
cal words  "this  is  my  body,"  and  Paul's  phraseology,  while  differ- 
ing slightly,  reports  essentially  the  same. 

38  The  difference  between  Zwingli  and  Calvin  may  be  briefly 
stated  as  follows  :  Zwingli  took  bread  and  wine  to  be  the  symbols 
of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood;  Calvin  saw  in  the  eating  and  drink- 
ing of  bread  and  wine  a  symbol  of  a  spiritual  receiving  of  Christ's 
Body. 


164 

mention  a  few  of  those  analogies:  (1)  As  our  bodies 
are  nourished  by  bread  and  wine,  so  our  souls  are  nour- 
ished by  the  spiritual  influences  received  from  the  body 
of  Christ.  (2)  As  with  our  mouth  we  eat  and  drink 
bread  and  wine,  so  we  receive  by  faith  the  fruits  of 
Christ's  suffering.  (3)  As  surely  as  in  the  Supper  we 
receive  the  visible  elements,  so  surely  indeed  was 
Christ's  Body  given  for  our  redemption  on  the  cross  and 
is  again  given  to  the  believers  as  a  seal  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  in  connection  with  (cum)  the  sacramental 
rite.^"  The  signifjdng  features  in  the  rite  (as  for  in- 
stance also  the  breaking  of  bread)  are  emphasized 
everywhere  by  Calvin  and  by  the  Reformed  theolo- 
gians,*°  and  it  is  in  the  system  of  these  analogies  that 
the  fundamental  doctrine  and  the  design  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  seen.*'  It  is  not  out  of  place  to  make  use  of 
such  analogies  in  preaching,  when  the  aim  is  to  bring  out 
the  devotional  and  the  liturgically  significant  features  by 
which  the  participants  in  the  holy  Supper  may  be 
spiritually  helped  as  long  as  the  fundamental  conception 
is  in  harmony  with  Scripture  and  with  the  doctrinal  ex- 
perience of  the  Church.  This  has  always  been  done  by 
the  conservative  teachers  of  the  Church,  by  church- 
fathers  such  as  Irenaeus,^-  and  also  by  the  Lutheran  dog- 
maticians.*''  The  Lutherans  also  believe  in  the  memorial 
and  in  the  seal,  but  they  cannot  agree  when  such  a  sys- 
tem of  analogies  is  used  as  the  basis  for  a  spiritualistic 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution.  This  method 
of  arriving  at  a  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  left  Cal- 
vin essentially  in  harmony  with  Zwingli,  whose  concep- 
tion of  the  Eucharist  as  a  memorial  he  merely  supple- 

39  What  Calvin  meant  when  he  spoke  of  a  receiving  of  Christ's 
Body  we  shall  see  a  little  later- 

40  Calvini  Institutiones  IV,  17-  See  also  Chas.  Hodge,  Syste- 
matic Theology  III,  pp.  611-650. 

41  An  old  Reformed  writer,  Amandus  Polanus,  in  "Partitiones 
Theologicae"  (1600),  lib.  i,  p.  225,  expressed  the  teaching  of  his 
church  correctly  when  he  stated:  "Sacramenti  forma  interna  ac 
essentialis  est  pulcherrima  ilia  analogia  et  similitude  signi  et  sig- 
nificati. 

42  See  W.  Rohnert,  Die  Lehre  von  den  Gnadenmitteln,  pp. 
151  ff. 

43  Cf.  Joh.  Gerhard,  Loci  Theologici,  XXII,  V,  20. 


165 

mented  by  adding  the  conception  of  the  seal  or  pledge  of 
the  thing  signified. 

Here  may  be  the  place  for  a  few  words  on  the  ques- 
tion what  Calvin  meant  when  he  said  that  in  the  Supper 
the  believers,  that  is,  the  elect,  receive  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ.**  He  even  spoke  of  the  substance  of 
Christ  (materiam  out  substantiam)  .*=  But  all  such  ex- 
pressions are  not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  Art.  X  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  rest  of  the  Lutheran  Sym- 
bols. The  spiritual  food,  to  Calvin,  is  really  not  the  Body 
of  Christ  as  His  glorified  humanity,  but  merely  some- 
thing that  Christ,  by  giving  His  Body  and  Blood,  did  and 
suffered  for  us.**'  Again  he  says:  "From  the  hidden 
fountain  of  divinity,  life  is,  in  a  wonderful  manner,  in- 
fused into  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  thence  flows  out  to 
us."*^  Hodge  (HI,628)  calls  Calvin's  conception  "a 
dynamic  presence."  Others  have  called  it  a  "virtual 
presence."  But  it  is  a  presence  fundamentally  different 
from  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity  in 
the  Supper,  which  Luther  taught.*^  Hodge  remarks  that 
the  "almost  universal  answer  of  the  Reformed  Confes- 
sions" is  that  the  communicant  receives  and  appropri- 
ates "the  sacrificial  virtue  or  effects  of  the  death  of 
Christ  on  the  Cross."*^  Calvin  contended  with  great  de- 
termination for  tM^o  statements  as  being  fundamental: 
"(1)  that  believers  receive  elsewhere  by  faith  all  they 
receive  at  the  Lord's  table;  and  (2)  that  we  Christians 
receive  nothing  above  or  beyond  that  which  was  received 
by  the  saints  under  the  Old  Testament,  before  the  glori- 

44  Consensus  Tigurinus,  Art.  XVIII,  Inst.  IV,  17,  9. 

45  Institutiones,  book  IV,  chapt.  14,  sec.  16;  cf.  IV,  17,  n,  24. 

46  Inst.  IV,  17,  I,  5,  9,  and  at  many  other  places. 

47  Calvin's  Confessionis  Capitum  Expositio,  in  Niemeyer's  col- 
lection of  Reformed  Confessions,  pp.  213  f . ;  cf.  Inst.  IX,  17,  9. 

48  Cf.  Calvin's  Secunda  Defensio  against  Westphal,  p.  896:  "I 
say  that  Christ's  Body  is  effectively  exhibited  in  the  Supper,  non 
naturaliter,  sed  secundum  virtutem.  non  secundum  substantiam." 
Christ's  Body  is  regarded  as  confined  to  the  Right  Hand  of  God  in 
heaven.  This  is  the  general  conception  of  the  Reformed  Confes- 
sions. Cf.  Consensus  Tigurinus  21,  196;  Confessio  Scotica  21,  353; 
Confessio  Helvetica  21,  522. 

49  Systematic  Theology  III,  645  f. 


166 

fied  Christ  had  any  existence."^"  He  accepted  the 
language  of  the  words  of  institution,  particularly  the 
terms  "Body"  and  "eating",  but  he  reinterpreted  these, 
on  the  basis  of  his  analogies,  so  as  to  stand  for  and  to 
mean  Christ's  life  and  suffering  which  we  appropriate 
through  faith  for  our  salvation.^^  In  other  words,  Cal- 
vin saw  in  the  Sacrament  merely  the  promise  or  the 
Gospel  certified.^'  The  Sacraments  were  to  him  "a  peda- 
gogy of  signs  for  a  weak  faith."  In  the  conception  of 
Calvin  they  work  merely  through  the  psychological  im- 
pression of  a  symbolical  act.  There  is  more  than  in  the 
conception  of  Zwingli,  because  of  the  emphasis  upon  the 
sacramental  action  as  the  pledge  and  the  seal,  but  both 
agree  in  the  symbolical  conception. 

The  teaching  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is  fundamen- 
tally different.  We  have  expressed  it  above  and  may  ex- 
press it  once  more  in  slightly  different  phraseology:  In- 
dependent of  man's  spiritual  condition — -strong  faith, 
weak  faith,  conscious  or  unconscious  faith,  indifference 
or  even  frivolous  unbelief — purely  because  of  the  divine 
institution,  bread  and  wine,  in  the  sacramental  action, 
are  the  actual  vehicles  for  the  communication  of  Christ's 
glorified  Body  to  all  who  eat  and  drink  in  the  Supper: 
for  the  nourishment  of  the  spiritual  life  of  all  the  spiri- 
tually hungry,  but  for  the  condemnation  of  the  unre- 
penting  and  unbelieving.  In  the  view  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  the  mystery  does  not  lie  in  the  doctrinal  differ- 
ence between  Luther  and  Calvin,  i.  e.,  in  the  question 
whether  the  realistic  or  the  spiritualistic  interpretation 
of  the  words  of  institution  renders  the  correct  concep- 
tion; no,  the  mystery  is  to  be  sought  in  the  unio  sacra- 
mentalis  itself,  i.  e.,  in  the  question  how  bread  and  wine 
in  the  Supper  can  be  vehicles  for  the  heavenly  gift  so 


50  Hodge,  as  cited,  III,  647. 

51  Cf.  Institutiones  IV,  17,  5. 

52  Institutiones  IV,  17,  14;  cf.  English  translation  by  J-  Allen, 
II»  P-  538:  Iterum  repeto  quum  coena  nihil  aliud  sit  quatn  conspi- 
cua  testificatio,  quae  Jo-  6  habetur,  nempe  Christum  esse  panem 
vitae,  qui  e  coelo  descendit,  panem  visibilem  intercedere  oportet, 
quo  spiritualis  ille  figuretur.     See  also  Stahl  p.  86. 


167 

that  "in,  with  and  under"  these  earthly  means  (materia 
terrestris)  Christ's  glorified  humanity  (materia  coeles- 
tis)  can  be  communicated.  Before  this  mystery  the 
Lutheran  Confessions  simply  say  that  God  can  do  what 
He  promises.  They  believe  that  in  the  Sacrament  a 
special  gift  is  received,  namely,  a  spiritual  food  which, 
in  God's  will  and  power,  is  substantialized  in  Christ's 
glorified  humanity  and  communicated  as  such.  The  Sac- 
raments work  different  from  the  Word.  The  Word 
works  by  an  appeal  to  the  faculties  of  mind  and  soul,  by 
convincing  the  hearer  of  sin  and  judgment  and  by  ac- 
quainting him  with  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.  In  the 
preparatory  service,  as  in  the  liturgy  expressing  the 
sacramental  action,  there  is  much  of  this  same  work  of 
the  Word,  which  is  to  aid  us  to  become  worthy  communi- 
cants so  that  we  may  receive  the  blessing.  But  the  spe- 
cific work  of  the  Sacrament  as  such  is  different  from  that 
of  the  Word.  It  communicates  the  special  gift  in  an  im- 
mediate way,  not  through  the  actions  of  our  soul,  but 
rather  in  the  way  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  upon 
the  disciples  when  they  were  in  a  state  of  waiting,  after 
the  preparation  of  the  heart  had  taken  place  through  the 
preaching  of  the  Word.  The  work  of  the  Word  is  in- 
separable from  the  Sacrament,  but  not  identical  with  it, 
the  same  as  that  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  was  not  identi- 
cal with  the  preaching  of  Peter  that  had  preceeded.  The 
gift  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity  in  the  Sacrament  is  to 
the  worthy  communicant  a  seal  upon  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  It  nourishes  the  divine  life,  it  works  a  longing 
after  God,  a  stronger  faith,  the  gift  of  perseverance,  an 
illumination  of  his  understanding.  The  new  man  is 
strengthened  and  more  and  more  fashioned  after  the 
divine  image.  This  is  not  the  ex  opere  operato  teaching 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Rome  says  that  the 
Sacrament  brings  the  blessing  merely  by  the  administra- 
tion (provided  a  mortal  sin  does  not  stand  in  the  way)  ; 
the  Lutheran  Church  teaches  that  the  condition  for  re- 
ceiving the  blessing  is  repentance  and  faith  worked 
through  the  Word.     As  long  as  this  is  regarded  as  the 


168 

condition ,  and  the  Word  as  a  means  for  working  re- 
pentance and  faith  is  held  to  be  inseparable  from  the 
Sacrament,  the  charge  of  a  magical  working  is  without 
foundation. 

The  teachings  of  the  Lutheran  and  of  the  Reformed 
Church  on  the  Lord's  Supper  are  exclusive  of  each  other. 
It  is  true,  Luther  never  wrote  against  Calvin.  But  that 
was  because  during  the  lifetime  of  Luther  Calvin's  posi- 
tion on  the  Supper  was  not  clearly  known.^^  But  Luther, 
after  all,  practically  fought  Calvinism  when  he  took  his 
uncompromising  attitude  against  the  mediating  teaching 
of  Bucer,  to  which  Melanchthon  had  begun  to  incline.^* 
When  this  mediating  interpretation  of  the  Real  Presence 
was  openly  expressed  in  the  articles  of  faith  drawn  by 
Bucer  and  Melanchthon  for  the  introduction  of  the  Re- 
formation into  the  city  of  Cologne,  Luther  realizing  that 
the  end  of  his  life  was  drawing  near,  felt  it  to  be  his  duty 
to  let  the  world  know  that  he  had  never  departed  from 
the  position  of  a  Real  Presence,  and,  therefore,  published 
(1544)  his  last  Confession  of  the  Supper.^^  Calvin  also 
knew  that  his  difference  from  Luther  was  exclusive  and 
fundamental  for  the  life  of  the  Church.  He  knew  that 
he  was  essentially  in  harmony  with  Zwingli  and  Oeco- 
lampadius.^*^  The  attitude  of  Calvin  toward  the  Luther- 
an conception  of  the  Supper  can  be  seen  in  the  fact  that 
though  usually  moderate  in  controversy,  he  indulged 
in  the  most  severe  expressions  when  he  came  to  discuss 
the  Lutheran  teaching  of  a  Real  Presence.  This  doctrine 
was  to  him  utterly  absurd,  a  papistic  invention,  and  one 


53  Cf.  Koestlin-Kawerau,  Martin  Luther,  vol.  II,  p.  577;  Hering 
Geschichte  der  kirchlichen  Unionsversuche  I,  196;  Our  discussions, 
p.  22,  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1918,  p.  557. 

54  Cf.  De  Wette,  Briefe  Luthers  IV,  557  f.,  Koestlin-Kawerau,  as 
cited,  II,  329,  335.  See  the  text  of  the  Wittenberg  Concord  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  Corpus  Reformatorum  III,  pp.  375  ff. ;  English  in 
Jacobs'  Book  of  Concord,  II,  235. 

55  Kurtz  Bekenntnis  D.  Martin  Luther's  vom  Heiligen  Sakra- 
ment.  Erl.  Ed.  of  Luther's  Works  XXXII,  pp.  379  fT.  Cf.  Our  dis- 
cussions pp.  13  E.    Luth.  Quarterly,  Jan'y  1918,  p.  iii. 

56  See  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  and  his  letter  to  the  Swiss 
churches  prefixed  to  his  Consensionis  Capitum.  Expositio,  in  Nie- 
meyer's  Collectio  Confessionum,  Leipzig  1840,  '^   201. 


169 

of  the  grossest  among  all  errors,  explainable  to  his  mind 
only  by  the  influence  of  Satan." 

(B)  Baptism.  We  cannot  agree  with  so  many  writ- 
ers of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  when  they  treat 
the  difference  on  the  Lord's  Supper  as  unessential. 
Neither  are  they  correct  when  they  treat  it  as  practi- 
cally the  only  hindrance  in  the  way  of  union.  The  diff- 
erence on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  merely  the  symptom  of  a 
general  fundamental  difference.^®  There  is  the  same 
fundamental  difference  with  regard  to  Baptism  and  the 
means  of  grace  in  general.  Baptism  is  to  the  Reformed 
Confessions  a  ceremony  for  the  initiation  into  the 
Church, '^^  a  testimony  of  the  believer's  confession  before 
men,''°  a  symbol  of  cleansing  from  sin  and  as  such,  that 
is  as  a  symbol,  an  assurance  of  forgiveness  of  sins  for 
the  elect.*^^  Graul,  paraphrasing  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism on  this  subject,  writes:  "Baptism  is  merely  a 
figure,  that  like  as  the  filthiness  of  the  body  is  washed 
away  with  water,  so  also  our  sins  are  washed  away  by 
the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ  (which  are  really  the  ac- 
tive causes),  but  it  is  also  a  seal  of  the  thing  signified, 
that,  as  certainly  as  the  one  is  done,  the  other  takes 
place;  it  (Baptism)  does  not,  therefore,  effect  regenera- 
tion, but  is  a  mere  figure  and  seal  of  it."*'^  Here  again 
the  doctrine  rests  upon  the  analogies  between  the  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  rite  and  its  spiritual  suggestions. 
It  is  spiritualistic  in  character,  and  as  an  ordinance  and 
in  its  spiritual  significance,  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism 
is  on  a  level  with  circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament. 
John's   Baptism   is    regarded   as   being   essentially   the 

57  Calvin's  Institutiones  IV,  17,  19:  "Horribile  fascino  satan  de- 
mentavit  eorum  mentes.  Cf.  English  edition  by  J.  Allen,  p.  543; 
cf.  542,  551.     See  also  Wangemann,  Una  Sancta  I,  book  5,  pp.  167  ff. 

58  Compare  what  we  wrote  p.  30,  Luth.  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1918, 
P-  564. 

59  Second  Helvetic  Confession  20,  517.  Cf.  Calvini  Institutiones 
IV,  15,  I. 

60  Institutiones  IV,  14,  13. 

61  Institutiones  IV,  15,  1-6.     Catechismus  Palatinus. 

62  See  English  translation  by  Martens,  after  Seeberg's  prepa- 
ration of  Graul's  book  for  the  twelfth  edition;  cf.  Calvini  Insti- 
tutiones IV,  15,  14. 


170 

same  as  the  Baptism  instituted  by  Christ.*'^  Baptism, 
then,  works  merely  by  the  pedagogy  of  the  rite.  The 
forgiveness  of  sins  is  in  no  wise  received  through  the 
sacramental  act,  that  is,  through  the  water  in  connection 
with  the  Word,  as  the  Lutheran  Church  teaches ;  for  the 
application  of  water  is  only  a  symbol  through  which  a 
certain  assurance  of  forgiveness  is  illustrated  and  re- 
ceived, provided  the  recipient  has  turned  in  repentance 
and  faith  to  God  or  is  doing  so,  under  the  act  of  Bap- 
tism, or  will  do  it  later,  and  so  receives  the  Baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  To  Calvin,  the  efficient  factor  is  not 
Baptism,  but  the  Word  which  works,  not  through  Bap- 
tism, but,  at  best,  in  connection  with  it.  Baptism  is, 
therefore,  not  "necessary  for  salvation"  as  the  Augsburg 
Confession  (Art.  IX)  holds.  It  is  not  a  real  means  of 
grace,  and  offers  no  real  assurance  of  grace.  Here  again, 
as  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  difference  is  fundamental 
and  exclusive. 

Martensen  says:  "Calvin's  doctrine  (of  the  means  of 
grace)  rests  upon  a  dualism  distinguishing  between  the 
kingdom  of  grace  and  that  of  nature,  between  heaven 
and  earth.  Spirit  and  body.^*  The  finite  is  regarded  as 
incapable  of  the  infinite.  The  divine  is  not  allowed  to 
combine  vitally  with  the  human.  It  is  insisted  that  sal- 
vation comes  from  God  direct,  not  by  any  mediation  of 
divinely  appointed  acts  of  the  Church.  The  Sacraments 
are,  therefore,  empty  signs,  empty  ceremonies  which  re- 
ceive a  content  only  in  so  far  as  the  faith  of  the  predes- 
tinated or  eternal  election  is  positing  into  them  for  him 
as  an  individual.  In  fundamental  opposition  to  this 
view  the  Lutheran  Church  is  established  upon  the  rela- 
tion of  a  res  in  re  (one  element  in  the  other  as  opposed 
to  a  side  by  side  relation)  between  the  heavenly  and  the 
earthly,  in  order  to  communicate  to  man  the  grace  of 
God.  Lutheranism  does  not  want  to  overlook  the  fact 
that  man  as  an  object  of  God's  saving  grace  is  a  being  of 
spirit  and  of  body.  The  influences  of  his  spiritual  life 
are  conducted  through  the  channels  of  his  senses.      For 

63  Institutiones  IV,  14,  23;  15,  9. 

64  Christian  Dogmatics,  Sec.  263, 


171 

this  reason  God  has  chosen  the  audible  Word,  particular- 
ly the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  (Augsb'g,  Conf.  V)  as  a 
means  of  communicating  the  Spirit  and  His  saving  in- 
fluences, and  also  the  Sacraments  in  which  the  gift  of 
His  grace  is  communicated  to  man  through  the  elements 
of  His  creation."^ 

(C)  The  Word  has  been  mentioned  as  a  means  of 
grace,  and  many  writers  of  our  symbolical  literature  in- 
sist that  even  here  the  difference  between  Lutherans  and 
Reformed  may  be  observed.  Graul-Seeberg'^'^  says :  "The 
difference  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Con- 
fessions begins  already  in  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
Word.  The  Reformed  Confession  makes  it  a  guide  to 
eternal  life;  but  the  Lutheran  Confession,  in  accordance 
with  Scripture,  makes  it  a  real  means  of  grace,  which 
not  only  shows  where  to  find  the  treasure,  but  also  im- 
parts it,  for  it  is  a  power  unto  salvation  (Rom.  1:16),  a 
seed  of  regeneration  (1  Peter  1:23),  full  of  Spirit  and 
life  (John  6:63).  The  Spirit  does  not  hover  over  the 
Word,  but  comes  to  us  in  and  with  the  Word."  To  the 
Lutheran  Church,  the  Word  of  God  as  an  embodiment  of 
the  eternal  Word  is  a  living  vital  truth  carrying  the  di- 
vine power  within  itself,  because  it  is  always  in  a  union 
with  the  Spirit.  In  the  conception  of  the  Reformed,  who 
view  the  Word  of  God  largely  as  a  book  of  laws,  contain- 
ing certain  truths  and  observances  that  are  imposed 
upon  man  by  God,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  separated  from  it. 
The  Holy  Spirit  may  or  may  not  accompany  the  Word." 
That  peculiar  distinction  between  the  external  and  the 
inner  Word  appeared  as  an  objection  to  the  Lutheran 
conception  of  the  means  of  grace  right  from  the  be- 

65  We  refer  to  the  instructive  sketch  of  M.  Reu,  Die  Gnaden- 
mittellehre  (Chicago,  111.,  Wartburg  Publishing  House,  1917),  par- 
ticularly pp.  64-67;  cf.  p.  5. 

66  Distinctive  Doctrines,  p.  152. 

67  For  a  scientific  review^  of  the  matter  see  J.  A.  W.  Haas  in  an 
article  in  the  Lutheran  Church  Review,  Jan'y,  1919,  p.  5  f. ;  also  H. 
Schmidt,  Handbuch  der  Symbolik,  pp.  367  flf. 


172 

ginning  in  the  writings  of  Zwingli  and  Oecolampad.^* 
It  may  be  objected  that  this  difference  on  the  Word  does 
not  appear  so  much  in  present-day  discussions,  and  no 
doubt  many  preachers  and  writers  of  the  Reformed 
churches  are  not  conscious  of  such  difference.  Yet  the 
real  character  of  a  church  appears  in  the  periods  of  its 
doctrinal  conflicts;  in  times  of  confessional  indifference 
the  true  nature  of  the  Church  is  always  beclouded.*'^ 

Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination  is  inseparably 
linked  up  with  this  distinction  between  the  external  and 
the  inner  Word.  God  "inclines  the  hearts  of  those  whom 
he  has  predestinated  to  everlasting  life  to  faith,  through 
His  Word  and  Spirit;  whilst  He  calls  all  others  only  ex- 
ternally through  the  Word,  but  does  not  accompany  it 
with  His  Spirit  to  make  it  effective  in  their  hearts."^" 
The  Lutheran  Church  cannot  agree  to  such  a  distinction 
between  the  external  and  the  inner  Word.  It  destroys 
the  universality  of  grace  and  makes  salvation  through 
Christ  uncertain.  If  that  distinction  is  to  be  accepted, 
then  the  efficient  promise  of  the  Gospel  is  not  the  foun- 
dation of  hope  for  the  individual  Christian,  but  that 
foundation  is  a  secret  election  (Calvinism),  or  it  is  the 
subjective  experience  of  a  revival  (Armianism). 

It  needs  to  be  seen  that  the  differences  which  we  have 
reviewed  all  point  to  a  fundamental  difference  which 
permeates  the  whole  conception  of  the  means  of  grace. 
Luther  stated  the  fact  when  he  said  to  Zwingli :  "Ye 
have  another  spirit  than  we."  The  investigations  of  Prof. 

68  Zwinglii  Commentarius  de  Vera  et  Falsa  Religione,  Opera 
ed.  Schuler  et  Schulthess  VII,  pp.  131  seq.  138.  Cf.  Luther's  Works 
(Walch),  Schwaebisches  Syngramma,  XX,  p.  691,  Oecolampad's 
answer  ibidem  XX,  pp.  769,  770.  Cf.  Luther's  Grosses  Bekenntnis 
vom  Abendmahl  XX,  1304.  While  Calvin  expresses  himself  with 
some  caution  upon  this  subject,  he  is  in  harmony  with  the  earlier 
leaders  of  the  Reformed  Church.  Cf.  Institutiones  IV,  16,  19.  Hel- 
vetica Posterior,  p.  468. 

69  See  the  fine  observations  on  this  matter  by  Rudelbach,  Re- 
formation, Luthertum  und  Union,  pp.  185  f. 

70  Distinctive  Doctrines,  p.  151,  with  references  to  the  Canons 
of  Dort,  chapt.  I,  Art.  VII.  Westminster  Confession,  chapt.  X. 
The  Consensus  Genevensis  on  the  "Eternal  Election  of  God."  Rep- 
resentative Reformed  writers  accept  this  doctrine  (cf.  C.  Hodge, 
Systematic  Theology  III,  x  p.  483). 


173 


von  Schubert"  have  shown  us  that  it  is  a  mistake  to 
take  these  words  of  Luther  as  an  expression  of  unkind- 
ness  to  his  opponent.  His  refusal  of  the  hand  of  fellow- 
ship and  to  commune  where  they  had  failed  to  arrive  at 
a  confessional  agreement  was  to  him  a  matter  of  con- 
science. We  know,  from  letters  to  his  wife  and  to  others, 
that  Luther  was  in  a  peaceful  attitude  of  mind  when  he 
said  those  much-quoted  words.  At  the  close  of  that 
colloquy  he  was  very  hopeful  of  a  union.  And  yet,  in  his 
refusal,  he  spoke  as  a  prophet.  He  felt  that  a  fundamen- 
tally different  "spirit"  stood  in  the  way.  History  has 
proved  that  he  was  right.  The  negotiations  with  Bucer, 
the  confessional  development  of  Caivin,  the  Union  move- 
ments of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  history  of  Protes- 
tantism up  to  this  day  have  all  shown  that  there  is  a 
difference  of  spirit  that  cannot  be  overcome.  Each  side 
has  developed  its  own  theology,  its  own  confessional  and 
practical  traditions,  and  an  altogether  different  church 
life.  One  cannot  see  how  two  churches  constructed  upon 
principles  so  opposed  to  each  other  can  enter  into  an 
organic  union. 

4.     Public  Teaching  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod. 

A  church  body  establishing  itself  upon  the  Union 
principle  is  confronted  with  a  peculiar  task  when  it 
comes  to  the  creation  of  an  official  church  literature. 
The  conflicts  in  the  Prussian  Church  Union  were  for 
many  years  about  the  Agenda,  i.  e.,  the  liturgical  forms 
for  church  worship  and  for  ministerial  acts.  This 
Agenda  aimed  to  adapt  itself  to  Lutherans  and  Reform- 
ed alike.'-  While  the  form  of  distribution  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  did  not  contradict  the  Lutheran  conception 
neither  did  it  give  expression  to  it."  In  1895  the  matter 
was  finally  settled  by  publishing  a  new  Agenda  with 
parallel  forms  for  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments. 
There  was  a  Lutheran  foi-m  for  the  Lutherans,  a  Re- 
formed form  for  the  Reformed  congregations  and  also 

71  Zeitschrift  fuer  Kirchengeschichte,  Gotha,  1908,  p.  354. 

72  Chapter  V,  p.  119.    Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.  1919,  p.  534. 

73  Cf.  p.  127.    Lutheran  Quarterly,  as  cited,  p.  542. 


174 

a  Union  form  for  the  congregations  that  had  actually 
joined  the  UnionJ*  With  regard  to  the  catechism,  the 
matter  is  simple  in  a  purely  confederative  union.  In  the 
Prussian  Church  Union,  which  in  the  central  provinces 
and  in  the  East  is  overwhelmingly  Lutheran,  the  cate- 
chism of  Luther  is  used,  and  the  Reformed  use  the 
Heidelberg.  In  the  Rhine  Provinces,  where  the  Reformed 
Church  is  strong,  either  the  Heidelberg  or  a  Union  cate- 
chism is  in  use,  and  Union  catechisms  are  found  in  An- 
halt,  Hesse,  Nassau,  Waldeck,  Hanau,  Baden  and  in  the 
Palatinate  on  the  Rhine.^^  The  difficulty  comes  in  the 
case  of  an  absorptive  Union  where  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed are  to  be  united  into  one  confessional  Union. 
Here  the  question  arises  whether  the  teaching  is  to  rest 
upon  the  consensus  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformd 
Confessions. 

Much  has  been  written  on  the  consensus  and  the  dis- 
sensus.^*'  A  consensus  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reform- 
ed Confessions  on  the  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace  is 
non-existing,  and  the  dissensus  in  this  very  important 
sphere  of  Christian  teaching  extends  to  many  other  doc- 
trines (the  person  of  Christ,  election.  Church,  Church 
government.  Church  service,  absolution,  etc.)  There  is 
less  writing  on  these  matters  to-day  as  compared  with 
the  sixteenth  and  the  seventeenth  centuries  and  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  simply  because  the  prob- 
lem has  been  thoroughly  and  exhaustively  ventilated  and 
the  lesson  has  been  learned  that  a  doctrinal  union  be- 
tween Lutheranism  and  Calvinism  cannot  be  looked  for. 

The  Union  movements  of  the  seventeenth  and  the  nine- 
teenth centuries  have  impressed  their  historical  lessons 
indelibly  upon  the  historically  intelligent  theologians  of 
the  leading  churches.  In  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century  the  problem  of  a  doctrinal  union  was  still  on 
trial,  and  the  great  theologians  of  the  mediating  school 

74  See  p.  137,  Luth.  Quarterly,  p.  552. 

75  See  p.  138;  in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.  1919,  p.  553- 

76  See  the  very  instructive  chapter  on  this  subject  by  Stahl, 
Lutherische  Kirche  und  Union,  pp.  50-80. 


175 

in  Germany — ^the  so-called  consensus  theologians — were 
hopeful  of  its  realization.  Prof.  J.  Mueller  at  Halle  and 
Prof.  I.  C.  Nitzsch  at  Bonn  and  later  at  Berlin  labored 
for  a  crystallization  of  the  consensus  and  for  an  incor- 
poration of  the  same  into  a  public  confession  upon  which 
the  Union  might  establish  itself.  In  that  draft  for  an 
ordination  formula,  which  was  presented  by  Nitzsch  to 
the  General  Synod  in  Berlin  (1846),  we  have  the  tangi- 
ble result  of  that  movement."  But  this  "Nicenum  of 
the  nineteenth  century",  or  "Nitzschenum,"  as  it  was 
called,'®  failed  of  adoption.  It  is  exceedingly  interesting 
to  observe  that  all  this  took  place  at  a  time  when  creed- 
making  on  the  basis  of  the  "fundamentals"  as  contrasted 
with  the  "non-fundamentals"  was  in  the  air.  It  was  in 
1845,  in  a  convention  at  Liverpool,  in  England,  where 
the  nine  points  constituting  the  doctrinal  basis  for  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  had  been  drafted.  General  Super- 
intendent W.  Hoffman  (Berlin)  and  Tholuck  (Halle) 
were  present.  And  it  was  in  those  years  when  in  the  old 
General  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  the 
men  of  "American  Lutheranism,"  under  the  special  lead 
of  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker  (together  with  Drs.  Kurtz  and 
Sprecher),  were  at  work  to  create  a  symbol  for  a  "Lu- 
theranism modified  by  the  Puritan  element,"  which, 
finally,  1853,  appeared  in  the  "Definite  Synodical  Plat- 
form."^^  But  this  undertaking  also  failed.  The  failing 
of  the  consensus  at  that  convention  in  Berlin  (1846) 
marks  the  change  in  the  Prussian  Church  Union  from 
an  absorptive  to  a  confederative  Union.®*'  And  it  was 
the  failure  of  the  Definite  Platform  theology  in  the  old 
General  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America, 
which  established  the  English  Lutheran  synods  in 
America  upon  the  historic  Lutheranism  of  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession. 

^^    See  p.  131  and  the  foot  notes. 

78  Kurtz,  Church  History  (English,  1888),  Sec  193,  3. 

79  Cf.  Neve,  Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America 
(second  ed-,  pp.  122-28;  also  A.  Spaeth  in  R.  E.  XVII,  665;  XIV,  165. 

80  Cf.  p.  132,  Luth.  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1919,  p.  547. 


176 

After  this  discussion,  in  which  it  has  been  our  inten- 
tion to  bring  together  for  easy  review  some  lessons  of 
history,  we  shall  examine  the  official  teaching  of  the  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Synod. 

Our  task  is  to  be  undertaken  on  the  basis  of  the  fol- 
lowing literature:  The  Evangelical  Catechism,  revised 
edition  of  1896  (the  same  in  German  on  parallel  pages). 
Next  comes  the  interpretation  of  this  catechism  by  D. 
Irion:  "Der  Evangelische  Katechismus,  aus  der  Schrift 
und  Biblischen  Geschichte  erklaert"  (a  book  of  453 
pages).  Herausgegeben  von  der  Evangelischen  Synode 
von  Nord-Amerika  (1897).  The  author  of  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  catechism  has  his  heart  in  the  Lutheran 
dogma,  and  aims  to  express  it  to  the  limit  of  consistency 
with  the  official  position  of  his  synod.  This  can  be  seen 
especially  in  the  discussion  of  the  Sacraments  in  gen- 
eral and  of  Baptism  in  particular.  On  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per the  position  is  not  quite  so  clear  (cf.  p.  356),  and  in 
the  appreciation  of  the  difference  between  the  Lutheran 
and  the  Reformed  conception  there  is  the  Union  feature 
(p.  364).  This  catechism,  however,  while  published  by 
the  synod,^^  seems  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  official  or  the 
recognized  teaching  of  the  synod,  for  in  the  preface  by 
the  Literary  Committee  we  see  that  the  individual  diff- 
erence of  this  exposition  of  the  catechism  from  its  pre- 
decessor (written  by  Andreas  Irion,  father  of  the  pre- 
sent author)  is  justified  on  the  basis  that  "such  differ- 
ence within  the  agreement  on  the  fundamentals  is  legiti- 
mate in  the  Evangelical  Church."  This  has  reference 
not  only  to  the  form,  but  also  to  the  doctrinal  conception. 
The  aim  of  the  synod  is  always  to  avoid  a  confessional 
expression  on  the  matters  of  disagreement  between  Lu- 
therans and  Reformed,  and  to  appeal  to  Scripture  with- 
out commitment  to  a  definite  interpretation.  See  our 
discussion  in  this  chapter,  sub  III,  2:  "Scripture  versus 
Confession."     Another   important   source   for   learning 

8i  On  the  title  page  we  read :  "Herausgegeben  von  der  Evange- 
lischen Synode  von  N.  A." 


177 

the  public  teaching  of  this  body  is  the  "Evangelical 
Fundamentals  (part  two),  Evangelical  Belief  and  Doc- 
trine, or  the  Evangelical  Catechism  Explained  for  use 
in  Catechetical  Instruction,  the  Sunday  School  and  the 
Home"  (1916).  This  little  book  of  153  pages,  prefaces 
itself  as  "a  somewhat  abridged  translation"  (by  J.  H. 
H.)  of  Dr.  D.  Irion's  "Erklaerung  des  Evangelischen 
Katechismus."  In  some  characteristic  omissions  and  ad- 
ditions the  tendency  of  this  book  appears  to  be  to  tone 
down  the  more  Lutheran  position  of  Dr.  Irion  (cf.  pp. 
141-143).  There  is,  however,  nothing  to  indicate  the 
official  character  of  this  compend  on  "Evangelical  Belief 
and  Doctrine"  beyond  the  fact  of  its  being  in  the  main 
an  abridged  translation  of  Dr.  Irion's  work.^-  Another 
source  for  ascertaining  the  synod's  doctrinal  position  is 
the  "Evangelical  Book  of  Worship,  published  by  the  Ger- 
man "Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America  (1916)." 
This  work  of  299  pages  comprises  the  liturgical  formulas 
and  the  forms  for  ministerial  acts.  Here  we  are  in  a 
special  sense  upon  official  ground,  because  the  book  was 
authorized  by  the  "General  Conference  of  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod  of  N.  A.  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  Sept. 
1913."  Let  us  now  see  how,  in  this  literature,  the  synod 
has  dealt  with  the  matters  of  doctrinal  conflict  between 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Church. 

(A)  The  arrangement  of  the  Catechism.  Like  Luther's 
Catechism,  and  different  from  the  Heidelberg,  the  cate- 
chism of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  begins  with  the 
Ten  Commandments,  but  in  following  the  Old  Testament 
text,  after  the  manner  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  a 
second  commandment  is  inserted  which  forbids  the  wor- 
shipping of  God  in  any  image.  Thus  it  is  the  third  com- 
mandment that  deals  with  the  name  of  God,  the  fourth 
with  the  Sabbath,  and  so  on  up  to  the  Lutheran  eighth 
commandment  which  now  becomes  the  ninth.  Then 
the  Lutheran  ninth  and  tenth  commandments  are  taken 


82  On  the  history  of  the  official  catechism  in  the  German  Evan- 
gelical Synod  see  Braendele  in  R.  E.  XIV,  179.  33)  i8o,  3  S.;  180, 
3  ff. ;  Muecke,  p.  117;  Schory,  p.  105  ff. 


178 

together  into  one  as  the  tenth  commandment.  Luther's 
interpretation  of  each  commandment  is  displaced  by 
other  words.  Part  II  of  the  catechism  on  "The  Christian 
Faith"  interprets  on  the  basis  of  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
and  makes  use  of  Luther's  words  as  a  summing  up  of 
the  interpretation.  Part  III  on  "Prayer"  uses  the  peti- 
tions of  Luther's  Catechism.  Parts  IV  and  V,  on  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper,  do  not  employ  the  words  of 
Luther. 

(B)     Doctrinal  Features. 

(a)  On  the  Christian  Sunday.  Interpreting  the 
fourth  commandment,  the  "Fundamentals"  (p.  11)  offer 
the  following:  "The  Christian  Sunday,  however,  is  a 
different  institution  governed  by  a  different  spirit. 
There  is  no  command  in  the  New  Testament  to  keep  the 

first  day  in  the  week  or  any  other  day  of  the  week 

Christians  are  to  observe  the  day  not  because  the  law  of 
God  or  man  requires  them  to  do  so,  but  because  they  feel 
the  need  of  withdrawing  from  worldly  employments  to 
worship  God  and  nurture  their  spiritual  life.  Therefore 
real  Christians  will  not  need  special  Sunday  laws  or  or- 
dinances, nor  will  they  need  to  care  whether  the  last  or 
the  first  day  of  the  week  is  observed."  Generally  speak- 
ing, this  agreed  with  Lutheran  teaching. 

(b)  On  Christ's  descent  to  hell  we  read  in  the  brief 
catechism  of  the  synod,  p.  34:  "Christ  descended  into 
hell  to  triumph  over  the  dominion  of  darkness  and  there 
to  reveal  Himself  as  the  Redeemer  of  mankind."  Irion 
(p.  195)  and  his  translator  in  the  "Fundamentals"  (p. 
67),  accepting  this  definition,  step  into  the  discussion  by 
saying:  "The  descending  into  hell,  i.  e.,  into  the  place 
of  the  dead,  marks  the  beginning  of  Christ's  exaltation", 
etc.  This  differs  from  the  Reformed  teaching  in  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  question  44. 

(c)  On  the  person  of  Christ.  In  question  83  of  the 
synod's  brief  catechism  not  only  but  also  by  Irion  (pp. 
204f.)  and  by  the  "Fundamentals",  (p.  71)  the  doctrine 


179 

of  the  communicatio  idiomatum  on  the  basis  of  the  per- 
sonal union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  is  evaded.  Also 
in  the  outline  on  Dogmatics  ("Evangelische  Glaubens- 
lehre")  by  Prof.  W.  Becker,  D.D.,  of  the  Eden  Theolo- 
gical Seminary,  no  teaching  on  this  subject  is  offered 
(cf.  p,  56) ;  only  a  historical  review  of  the  history  of 
dogma  is  given  (p.  61  ff.),  and  the  matter  is  dismissed 
with  the  remark:  "The  whole  orthodox  construction  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  dissolved  itself  in 
the  time  of  rationalism"  (p.  63).  Here  we  remark: 
While  it  is  true  that  the  details  of  Lutheran  Christology 
on  the  relation  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  are  of  a  later 
date  (Art.  VIII  in  the  Formula  of  Concord),  yet  it 
should  not  be  overlooked  that  Art.  Ill  of  the  Augsb'g 
Confession  takes  special  pains  to  reject  Nestorianism,*' 
and  thus  to  draw  the  consequences  from  the  perichoresis 
or  the  mutual  permeation  of  the  natures  in  Christ  as 
confessed  in  the  Chalcedonian  Creed.  The  religious  in- 
terest of  Luther  in  the  unio  personalis  and  the  communi- 
catio idiomatum  was  not  merely  the  defence  of  the  Real 
Presence,  but  the  full  value  of  the  atonement  through 
Christ.'*  In  the  conflict  between  the  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed on  this  subject  there  was  a  religious  interest 
which  cannot  now  be  ignored.  Also  Prof.  Becker  feels 
that  something  essential  is  involved  when  he  remarks 
with  regard  to  the  ancient  dogma  of  the  mutual  permea- 
tion of  the  natures  in  Christ :  "Eine  Weiterbildung  dieser 
Theorie,  die  von  wesentlicher  Bedeutung  gewesen  waere, 
erfolgte  im  Mittelalter  nicht."'"  But  that  development 
was  offered  by  the  Reformation  age.  While  the  deliver- 
ances of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Confessions 
may  bear  the  marks  of  theological  thought  as  contrasted 
with  religion,  yet  we  cannot  evade  the  fact  that  in  con- 

83  Note  the  words :  "There  are  two  natures,  the  divine  and  the 
human,  inseparably  conjoined  in  one  person,  one  Christ,  true  God 

and  true  man He  also  (namely,  this  one  Christ)  descended 

into  hell rose ascended that  He  might  sit   and 

forever  reign,  and  have  dominion and  sanctify,"  etc. 

84  See  Plitt,  Einleitung  in  die  Augustana  H,  79-102,  p.  95.  Cf. 
Neve,  Introduction  to  Lutheran  Symbolics,  pp.  130-34. 

85  Glaubenslehre,  p.  62. 


180 

fessional  expression  there  cannot  always  be  a  clear-cut 
separation  between  theology  and  religion:  the  one  is 
needed  to  express  the  other. 

(d)  The  treatment  of  Baptism  in  the  catechism  as 
interpreted  by  Irion  and  also  by  the  "Fundamentals"  is 
Lutheran.  A  Sacrament  is  defined  as  "a  holy  ordinance 
instituted  by  Christ  Himself,  in  which  by  visible  signs 
and  means  He  imparts  and  maintains  the  new  life."®* 
In  the  "Fundamentals"  we  read  on  the  Sacraments  in 
general:  "But  these  visible  signs  are  more  than  signs, 
they  are  also  means.  In  the  Sacraments  we  have  not 
only  outward  signs  showing  what  Christ  intends  to  do 
inwardly,  not  only  a  seal  or  pledge  that  he  is  actually 
present  in  a  spiritual  way ;  these  outward  things  are  also 
the  means  through  which  He  imparts  the  spiritual  gifts 
of  His  grace,  they  are  the  vehicles  of  His  spiritual  bless- 
ings" (p.  119.  Irion,  p.  324).  Again:  "As  long  as  we 
dwell  in  the  body,  the  body  is  the  natural  and  only  chan- 
nel through  which  the  spiritual  life  is  reached,  just  as 
we  can  only  receive  the  Word  of  God  by  means  of  the 
bodily  senses  and  their  organs.  Through  the  Sacra- 
ments God  seeks  to  act  upon  the  body  for  the  sake  of  in- 
fluencing the  spiritual  life."^^  On  Baptism  then  is  said: 
"Holy  Baptism  is  the  Sacrament  by  which  the  triune 
God  imparts  the  new  life  to  man",  etc.  Offense  should 
not  be  taken  at  the  word  "imparts;"  it  is  even  stronger 
than  the  term  used  in  Art.  IX  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion: "Through  Baptism  is  offered  the  grace  of  God." 
The  Latin  is  offeratur.  As  a  translation  of  this  term  the 
German  edition  of  the  Evangelical  Catechism  seems  to 
have  chosen  the  word  dargereicht.  (Die  Taufe  ist  das- 
jenige  Sacrament,  durch  welches  dem  Menschen  das 
neue  Leben  dargereicht  wird.)     It  is  to  be  remembered, 

86  Small  Catechism,  p.  58.  Irion,  p.  324  ff.  Fundamentals  p. 
118  ff. 

87  Fundamentals  p.  119.  Irion  p.  352.  These  few  words  express 
a  fundamentally  Lutheran  principle,  and  if  adhered  to  consistently, 
not  only  with  regard  to  Baptism,  but  also  in  conception  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  would  themselves  bring  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod  and  the  Lutheran  Church  together  in  a  true  tinion. 


181 

however,  that  Art  IX  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  does 
not  aim  at  formulating  a  complete  doctrine  of  Baptism. 
In  Art.  II  of  the  Confession  salvation  is  made  depend- 
ent upon  being  "bom  again  through  Baptism  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Art.  IX  takes  care  of  the  specifically  Lu- 
theran conception  by  the  phrase  "received  into  His 
grace"  (recipiantur  in  gratiam  Dei)  :  Baptism  is  an  ob- 
jective act  of  God  where  man  is  passive.  Melanchthon 
says  in  the  Apology:  "Baptism  is  a  work,  not  that  we 
offer  to  God,  but  in  which  Gad  baptizes  us."(  18).  And 
so  Luther,  referring  to  Titus  3 :5,  calls  it  a  "washing  of 
regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  all 
this  is  brought  out  in  unambiguous  teaching  in  the 
"Erklaerung"  of  Dr.  Irion  and  also  in  the  "Fundamen- 
tals." We  read:  "Holy  Baptism  is  more  than  a  mere 
symbol  of  the  cleansing  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Baptism  of  John  was  such  a  symbol,  but  the  Sacrament 
of  Holy  Baptism  was  needed  to  impart  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  with  it  the  new  life.  Acts  19:1-7."  Again  "Holy 
Baptism  imparts  what  we  could  not  otherwise  obtain, 
the  new  life."^^  On  question  127  there  is  an  evident  de- 
viation of  the  "Fundamentals"  from  the  decidedly  Lu- 
theran teaching  of  Dr.  Irion.  He  had  formulated  the 
subject  for  discussion  as  follows:  "The  divine  gift  of 
grace  is  comprehended  in  and  connected  with  the 
water,"  etc.  His  intention  is  to  discuss  the  sacramental 
union  between  the  materia  terrestris  and  the  materia 
coelestis.  He  calls  the  visible  element  (connected  with 
the  Word)  not  only  a  "sign",  but  also  a  "means"  and 
"vehicle"   (Mittel  und  Traeger)   for  communicating  the 

88  Fundamentals,  p.  122.  Irion,  pp.  329,  333.  This  is  different 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  questions  69,  72, 
73.  See  our  quotation  from  Graul,  sub  III,  3.  In  our  judgement, 
the  thought  in  Dr.  Irion's  "Erklaerung"  (pp.  330,  338)  and  in  the 
"Fundamentals"  (pp.  122,  123,  127,  129)  that  is  Baptism  only  the 
"seed-germ"  of  regeneration  is  planted  has  been  stressed  a  little 
too  much.  It  is  not  correct  to  say  that  under  all  circumstances 
"baptized  persons  must  be  converted  before  they  can  become 
really  regenerated."  We  know,  of  course,  that  in  the  relation  of 
regeneration  to  conversion  and  on  regeneration  to  Baptism  there 
are  various  modes  of  expression.  Cf.  the  article  "Wiedergeburt" 
in  Meusel,  Kirchl.  Handlexikon  VII,  pp.  240  S- 


182 

spiritual  gift,  i.  e.,  the  new  life  and  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  He  quotes  Augustine's  definition:  "The Word  is 
added  to  the  element  and  so  the  Sacrament  comes  into  ex- 
istence" and  also  adds  the  words  in  Luther's  Catechism: 
"It  is  not  the  water,  indeed,  that  produces  these  effects, 
but  the  Word  of  God,  which  accompanies  and  is  connect- 
ed with  the  water,  and  our  faith  which  relies  on  the 
Word  of  God  connected  with  the  water,"  etc.  The  "Fun- 
damentals", aiming  to  conform  to  the  material  of  the 
synod's  brief  catechism  under  the  question  "what  is  the 
visible  sign  in  Baptism?"  omits  (p.  125)  the  references 
to  Augustine  and  Luther.  The  water  is  called  "only  a 
visible  sign  for  the  gift  of  God,"  a  "symbol  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  new  life,"  and  the  terms  "means"  and 
"vehicle"  (Traeger),  which  are  employed  by  Irion  have 
here  been  altogether  eliminated.  Yet  on  pp.  118  and 
119,  in  dealing  with  the  Sacraments  in  general,  we  see 
that  the  "Fundamentals"  also  speak  of  "means  through 
which  He  (Christ)  imparts  the  spiritual  gifts  of  grace," 
these  means  being  called  "the  vehicles  of  His  spiritual 
blessings,"  and  of  Baptism  in  particular  it  is  said  that 
"God  gives  in  and  with  the  water  the  gift  of  spiritual 
life."  Is  it  merely  to  avoid  repetition  and  because  of  the 
narrower  scope  of  the  question  (127)  that  these  devia- 
tions were  decided  on  ? 

It  is  the  appreciation  of  Infant  Baptism  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Lutheran  Church,  together  with  the  practice 
of  confirmation  preceeded  by  a  thorough  religious  in- 
struction, which  lifts  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  out 
of  the  class  of  the  denominations  of  our  country  and 
places  it  in  an  undeniable  relation  to  the  Lutheran 
Church — in  spite  of  the  fact  that  in  a  number  of  prin- 
ciples touching  the  Union  (cf.  Ill,  1-2;  5),  also 
in  the  appreciation  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar, 
as  we  shall  see,  this  body  has  established  itself  upon 
positions  which  Lutheranism  can  never  recognize  with- 
out denying  itself. 

(e)     The  forms  for  preparatory  service  and  absolti^ 


183 

tion^^  are  also  Lutheran.    Here  also  the  Lutheran  ten- 
dency of  the  body  can  be  noticed. 

(f )  The  treatment  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  Evan- 
gelical Catechism  is  not  satisfactory  from  a  Lutheran 
view-point.  As  on  the  subject  of  Baptism  so  also 
in  part  five  on  the  holy  Supper  the  words  of  Luther  are 
not  used  in  the  catechism  proper;  the  interpretation  is 
in  other  language.  To  the  first  question  in  the  edition 
for  the  catechumens  (English)  :  "What  is  the  Lord's 
Supper?"  the  answer  is  given:  "The  Lord's  Supper  is 
that  Sacrament  by  which  we  receive  the  Body  and  the 
Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  nourishment  of 
our  new  life,"  etc.,  the  German  catechism  says:  "durch 
welches  der  neue  Mensch  den  Leib  und  das  Blut . . .  emp- 
faengt."  In  Dr.  Irion's  "Erklaerung,"  published  1897 
(pp.  354  f.),  the  same  expression  (der  neue  Mensch)  is 
used  and  interpreted.  Also  in  the  "Fundamentals"  we 
read  (p.  136) :  "The  Lord's  Supper  is  that  Sacrament  by 
which  the  new  man  receives  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  nourishment  of  his  new  life." 
But  in  the  latest  edition  of  the  catechism  for  catechu- 
mens this  phrase  "the  new  man"  has  been  omitted.  This 
would  indicate  that  the  teaching  of  Calvinism  that  the 
believer  only  receives  the  heavenly  gift  is  not  to  be  given 
as  the  recognized  doctrine  of  the  synod.  Dr.  Irion  is 
generally  on  the  Lutheran  side.  He  writes:  "How  is  it 
with  the  unworthy?  What  does  he  receive  and  what 
does  he  not  receive?  It  is  evident  that  man  through  his 
faith  or  unbelief  cannot  alter  the  Sacrament.  Not  man 
makes  the  Sacrament,  but  the  almighty  power  of  God. 
When,  therefore,  the  signs  and  the  means  are  there  and 
the  Word  of  God  is  added,  then  they  are  consecrated  and 
they  are  offered  as  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  to  those 
who  eat  whether  these  are  worthy  or  unworthy.  Both, 
then,  receive  the  same.  The  difference  is  in  the  effect, 
which  is  either  blessing  or  judgment  according  to  the 
difference  between  faith  and  unbelief."  This  is  certain- 
ly Lutheran  language  !  The  "Fundamentals"  are  less 

89    Cf.  Evangelical  Book  of  Worship,  p.  158  S. 


184 

outspoken,  yet  on  this  question  virtually  the  same  is  ex- 
pressed (p.  138). 

There  is,  however,  a  consideration  that  cannot  be 
passed  by  in  this  discussion.  When  the  catechism  says 
that  "we  receive  the  Body  and  the  Blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  we  have  to  ask:  What  is  here  meant  by 
these  terms?  We  learned  (sub.  Ill,  3)  that  Calvin  and 
several  of  the  Calvinistic  Confessions  also  speak  of 
Christ's  Body  being  received  in  connection  with  the  Sup- 
per, but  meaning  by  that  merely  something  spiritual, 
namely,  the  "sacrificial  virtue  or  effects  of  the  death  of 
Christ  on  the  cross."^"  What  is  the  meaning  when  the 
men  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  speak  of  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood  in  the  Supper?  Dr.  Irion,  whose  heart 
is  in  the  Lutheran  teaching,  as  we  have  seen  again  and 
again,  reviews  the  teachings  of  Luther,  Zwingli  and  Cal- 
vin (pp.  363  f.)  and  then  says  of  Luther's  Real  Pres- 
ence: "This  is  also  accepted  by  the  Evangelical 
Church."  (Dazu  bekennt  sich  auch  die  Evangelische 
Kirche).  But  for  a  Lutheran  accepting  the  position  of 
the  Union  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  inconsistencies.  After 
Dr.  Irion  has  admitted  that  to  Zwingli  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  "mere  memorial"  and  that  according  to  Calvin 
"bread  and  wine  are  after  all  only  empty  signs  and  that 
the  holy  Supper  gives  us  nothing  that  could  not  be  re- 
ceived outside  of  the  same,  namely,  through  real  prayer 
and  meditation  of  the  Word  of  God,"  he  says:  "The 
Evangelical  Church  also  recognizes  (laesst  zu  Recht 
bestehen)  the  Reformed  doctrine,  although  she  accepts 
Luther's  teaching  as  the  profoundest"  (p.  364).  The 
above  quoted  sentence  of  Dr.  Irion  ("This  is  also  accept- 
ed by  the  Evangelical  Church")  is  omitted  by  the  "Fun- 
damentals" (see  p.  141),  which  then  make  the  following 
statement:  "The  Evangelical  Church  does  not  undertake 
to  decide  for  or  against  any  one  of  these  (Lutheran, 
Zwinglian,  Calvinian)  teachings,  since  both  Christ  and 

90  Cf.  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology  III,  645  f.  We  quote  once 
more  these  words  of  Calvin :  "From  the  hidden  fountain  of  di- 
vinity, life  is  in  a  wonderful  manner  infused  into  the  flesh  of 
Christ  and  thence  flows  out  to  us" 


185 

the  Apostles,  while  stating  the  fact,  are  silent  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  believers  receive  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ"  (p.  142). 

Before  proceeding  in  our  review,  we  feel  constrained  to 
remark  that  the  Lutheran  Church  can  never  admit  that 
the  Scriptures  say  nothing  on  the  manner  in  which  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  are  received  in  the  holy  Supper.  Ac- 
cording to  the  words  of  institution,  reported  four  times 
in  the  New  Testament  with  almost  identical  terms,  it  is 
by  eating  and  by  drinking.  The  mystery  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  in  the  sacramental  union  between  the  earthly 
and  the  heavenly  elements;  not  in  the  question  whether 
the  communication  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity  takes 
place  in,  with  and  under  bread  and  wine  through  eating 
and  drinking,  or,  as  taught  by  Calvin,  that  the  life  from 
the  Body  of  Christ  (ex  came  et  sanguine  Christi)  is 
poured  out  upon  the  believer  in  connection  with  (cum) 
an  eating  and  drinking  of  merely  bread  and  wine.^^  But 
the  question  which  has  not  yet  been  answered  is :  What 
does  the  catechism  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  (and 
the  Book  of  Worship)  understand  by  the  terms  "Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ"?  Luther's  catechism  says:  "It  is 
the  true  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Art. 
X  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  says  that  "Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  are  truly  present  and  distributed  to  those  that 
eat."  Dr.  Irion  keeps  his  "Erklaerung"  throughout  in 
conformity  with  this  teaching  of  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sions (cf.  pp.  356  f.,  362  f.,  368).  Is  his  view  the 
teaching  of  the  synod?  While  the  book  is  published  by 
the  synod,  yet  we  saw  that  in  the  introduction  by  the  lit- 
erary committee  certain  teachings  are  regarded  as  indi- 
vidual positions  of  the  author  and  characterized  as  ex- 
pression of  theological  liberty.  On  page  356,  writing  on 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  Irion  says : 
"Therefore  Christ  has  made  provision  that  we  can  feed 
upon  His  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Supper,  this  means  that 
we  shall  receive  Jesus  in  His  essence  (wesenhaft)  into 
ourselves,  and  by  so  doing  His  redemption,  His  sin-con- 

Qi     On  this  matter  Dr.  Irion  speaks  very  correctly  on  pp.  362 
and  363. 


186 

quering  power If  we  now  feed  upon  (geniessen) 

the  Body  and  Blood  of  Jesus  we  receive  Himself  and  by 
that  our  own  redemption."  After  having  observed  the 
persistency  with  which  Dr.  Irion  expresses  the  Real  Pres- 
ence on  the  basis  of  the  sacramental  union,  we  cannot  be- 
lieve that  with  these  words  he  intended  an  approach  to 
Calvinism.  Calvin  rejected  the  Real  Presence;  yet,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  speaks  of  a  receiving  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper.  But  by  that  he  meant 
that  by  faith  the  elect  receive  something  spiritual  from 
the  Body  of  Christ,  which  in  reality  is  absent.  "From 
the  hidden  fountain  of  divinity,  life  is,  in  a  wonderful 
manner,  infused  into  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  thence  flows 
out  to  us."^2  This  "dynamic"  or  "virtual"  presence,  as 
Hodge  and  others  have  called  it,  seems  to  be  favored  by 
the  author  of  the  "Fundamentals."  In  his  abridged 
translation  of  the  above  quoted  passage  by  Dr.  Irion  it 
has  been  put  as  follows :  "His  Body  and  Blood  which  He 
has  given  for  us  for  the  remission  of  sins  stand  for  the 
sin-conquering  power  (italics  by  the  author)  of  His 
atonement  and  redemption.  By  receiving  it  we  receive 
Himself  and  His  work  of  redemption  and  strengthen  the 
inner  man  and  the  new  life"  (p.  137).  Are  these  words 
intended  to  express  the  conception  of  Calvin,  or  are  they 
to  represent  a  middle  ground  between  Calvin  and  Luther  ? 
We  reiterate  a  previous  statement:*'  "There  is  too  mid- 
dle doctrine  between  Luther  and  Calvin."  Yet  on  page 
140  of  the  "Fundamentals"  we  read  that  "the  bread  and 
wine  are  vehicles  of  the  Body  and  the  Blood  of  Christ," 
and  on  page  119 :  "In  the  Lord's  Supper  He  gives  in  and 
with  the  bread  and  wine  His  Body  and  His  Blood  as  the 
nourishment  of  the  new  life."  Can  this  be  maintained 
with  consistency  now  when  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  are 
not  really  present,  but  merely  "stand  for  the  sin-conquer- 
ing power  of  His  atonement  and  redemption?"  If  it  is 
this  that  we  mean  by  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  then  there 
is  no  need  for  outward  signs  as  vehicles,  but  the  receiv- 
ing takes  place  through  the  faith  which  responds  to  the 

92  See  the  references  above,  sub  III,  3. 

93  Cf.  p.  41 ;  in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.  1918,  p.  576. 


187 

influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  a  conception  would 
also  be  out  of  harmony  with  what  was  written  on  page 
119  on  the  Sacraments  in  general:  "These  outward 
things  are  also  the  means  through  which  He  imparts  the 
spiritual  gifts  of  His  grace ;  they  are  the  vehicles  of  His 
spiritual  blessings."  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism  each 
represent  a  historically  developed  system,  and  it  is  im- 
possible to  create  a  consistent  tertium  quid  by  patching 
the  two  together  in  an  artificial  way.  But  is  this  spirit^ 
ualistic  conception  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the 
"Fundamentals"  the  really  accepted  teaching  of  the  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Synod?  This  would  be  misunderstand- 
ing the  general  position  of  this  body.  It  simply  gives 
freedom  to  teach  Lutheran  or  Reformed  on  this  subject. 
"Such  difference  within  the  agreement  on  the  funda- 
mentals is  legitimate  in  the  Evangelical  Church."^*  A 
confessional  expression  is  avoided. 

The  official  position  of  the  synod  with  regard  to  teach- 
ing on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  expressed  in  the  "Evangel- 
ical Book  of  Worship"  (1916).  Let  us  review  for  a  mo- 
ment the  liturgical  formulas  there  presented.  Their  aim 
is  to  satisfy  both  types  of  teaching.  The  first  liturgical 
formula  (p.  162  f.)  is  offered  to  those  of  Lutheran  con- 
viction. In  doctrinal  thought  it  is  Lutheran,  but  it  bears 
the  marks  of  the  Union  in  two  points:  (1)  Before  recit- 
ing the  words  of  institution  the  minister  is  to  say:  "Let 
us  hear  with  reverent  hearts  the  words  of  Christ,  insti- 
tuting this  holy  Supper."  This  introductory  remark  be- 
fore the  act  of  consecration  reminds  us  of  the  formula 
with  which  the  Prussian  Church  Union  came  into  exist- 
ence.*'*  The  suggestion  to  the  communicant  is:  Such 
were  the  words  of  Christ;  now  interpret  them  as  they 
may  appeal  to  you.  (2)  For  the  distribution  of  the  wine 
two  forms  are  offered.  The  first  is:  "Take  and  drink, 
this  is  the  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  shed 
for  you,  and  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins ;  this  do 

94  Cf.  the  preface  to  Dr.  Irion's  "Erklaerung"  by  the  Literary 
Committee  of  the  synod. 

95  Compare  here  what  we  wrote  on  page  120  (separate  print) 
in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct,  1919,  p.  535  f.    See  foot-note  X9. 


188 

in  remembrance  of  Him."  And  then  this  alternate  is  of- 
fered :  "Take  and  drink  ye  all  of  it ;  this  is  the  Cup  of  the 
New  Covenant  in  the  Blood  of  Christ,  which  was  shed  for 
you,  and  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  (So  also 
the  second  form) .  This  is  entirely  Scriptural  and  in  har- 
mony with  the  words  used  in  giving  the  bread.  The  Lu- 
theran Church  also  uses  them  in  connection  with  the  con- 
secration of  the  elements,  but  not  as  a  form  of  distribu- 
tion, because  here  she  wants  to  profess  the  Real  Pres- 
ence. Besides  the  element  of  accommodation  to  the  Re- 
formed there  is  in  this  outward  conformity  to  the  Scrip- 
ture words  the  suggestion  of  treating  the  doctrinal  differ- 
ence as  an  open  question.  The  second  liturgical  formula 
is  obviously  designed  to  be  used  by  those  of  more  Re- 
formed persuasion.  Here  the  "Exhortation"  (p.  166) 
reads  as  follows :  "Dearly  Beloved :  Our  Blessed  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  instituted  the  Sacrament  of  the  holy  com- 
munion that  it  might  be  the  abiding  memorial  of  His 
atoning  death;  the  seal  of  His  perpetual  presence  in  the 
Church  through  the  Holy  Spirit;  the  mystical  represen- 
tation of  the  sacrifice  of  Himself  on  the  cross ;  the  pledge 
of  His  undying  love  to  His  people;  and  the  bond  of  His 
loving  union  and  fellowship  with  them  to  the  end  of 
time."  And  then  we  read :  "We  have  to  do  here,  not  with 
outward  signs  merely,  but  with  heavenly  realities  which 
these  signs  represent."  What  are  these  "heavenly  re- 
alities"? Here  is  room  for  all  those  shades  of  interpre- 
tation that  associate  themselves  with  Calvin's  concep- 
tion of  that  "spiritual  substance"  from  the  life  of  Christ, 
which  at  the  Supper  is  flowing  out  to  the  believing  com- 
municant. 

After  this  excursion  into  the  "Evangelical  Book  of 
Worship,"  we  return  again  to  the  catechism  as  inter- 
preted by  the  "Fundamentals,"  believing  that  our  review 
of  the  liturgical  formulas  has  confirmed  what  this  little 
book,  in  the  now  following  quotations,  offers  as  a  charac- 
terization of  the  confessional  position  of  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod.  On  page  142  we  read:  "The  Evan- 
gelical Church  does  not  undertake  to  decide  for  or  against 
any  one  of  these  teachings The  Evangelical  Churcji 


189 

believes  in  unity  rather  than  in  uniformity  of  doctrine, 
and  in  conformity  with  its  acknowledged  principle  in 
points  of  disagreement  always  employs  the  exact  words 
of  Scripture  in  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament." 
Our  arguments  against  this  position  has  been  expressed 
in  this  chapter,  sub  III,  2.  The  following  paragraph,  in- 
corporated in  the  "Fundamentals,"  (p.  142  f.)  character- 
izes the  position  of  the  synod  by  offering  the  following: 
"Two  knights  of  old,  who,  coming  from  opposite  direc- 
tions, one  day  met  before  the  statue  of  a  great  warrior. 
After  greeting  one  another  they  fell  to  admiring  the 
work  of  the  artist,  praising  the  various  details  of  feature, 
position,  etc.  'Look  at  the  great  silver  shield,'  said  the 
one,  'how  naturally  he  holds  it  aloft.'  'Silver  shield,  say- 
est  thou,'  said  the  other,  'the  shield  is  of  gold.'  'Gold,* 
replied  the  other,  'do  I  not  see  with  my  own  eyes  that  it 
is  silver?  How  can  it  be  gold?'  'And  I  say  it  is  gold!' 
hotly  retorted  the  other.  'To  say  it  is  of  silver  is  false.' 
*No  man  accuses  me  of  falsehood  unpunished,'  cried  the 
other  in  rage,  as  he  rushed  at  his  opponent  with  drawn 
sword.  The  mortal  combat  was  soon  over,  and  as  the 
victor,  himself  mortally  wounded,  gazed  at  the  shield 
above  him,  his  dying  look  was  dazzled  by  the  glittering 
gold.  One  side  of  the  shield  was  of  silver,  the  other  of 
gold!" 

This  story  is  told  to  show  "the  value  and  beauty  of  the 
Evangelical  way  of  treating  the  different  points  of  view 
on  this  or  any  other  subject."  The  Lutheran  Church 
does  not  deny  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  also  a  memorial. 
She  also  makes  use  of  the  analogies  of  Calvin  in  her  li- 
turgical formulas.  But  in  the  doctrinal  conception  not 
only  the  Zwinglian,  but  also  the  view  of  Calvin  stands 
opposed  to  the  Real  Presence  of  Luther.  The  two  posi- 
tions are  exclusive  the  one  of  the  other.  Yes  and  No  can 
not  dwell  together  in  one  conviction.  If  it  were  so  simple 
to  harmonize  the  entire  difference  between  the  Lutheran 
and  the  Reformed  Church,  then  it  would  be  difficult,  in- 
deed, to  understand  how  the  Reformers  in  their  time  and 
the  centuries  of  great  theologians  after  them,  up  to  the 
present  day,  could  have  labored  on  the  solution  of  the 


190 

problem  in  vain.    We  cannot  so  ignore  the  History  of 
Dogma. 

5.     The  Confessional  Paragraph  of  the  German  Evan- 
gelical Synod. 

It  reads  as  follows :  "The  German  Evangelical  Synod 
of  North  America,  as  a  part  of  the  Evangelical  Church, 
defines  the  term  'Evangelical  Church'  as  denoting  that 
branch  of  the  Christian  Church  which  acknowledges  the 
Holy  Scripture  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the 
Word  of  God,  the  sole  and  infallible  guide  of  faith  and 
life,  and  accepts  the  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scripture 
as  given  in  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed Churches,  the  most  important  being  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  Luther's  and  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chisms, in  so  far  as  they  agree,  but  where  they  disagree, 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America  adheres 
strictly  to  the  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  bearing  on  the 
subject,  and  avails  itself  of  the  liberty  of  conscience  pre- 
vailing in  the  Evangelical  Church."^*  We  shall  try  to  dis- 
cuss the  practical  questions  suggesting  themselves  from 
the  examination  of  this  doctrinal  basis. 

This  confessional  paragraph,  on  which  the  synod, 
agreed  at  an  early  time  of  its  history,®^  may  be  called  the 
dynamic  of  its  church  literature  and  of  its  public  teach- 
ing. It  is  this  confessional  paragraph  that  sanctions  all 
the  Union  features  which  we  have  reviewed  in  the  pre- 
ceding discussions,  or,  rather,  is  the  source  of  them.  It 
may  be  of  interest  here  to  quote  the  confessional  obliga- 
tion taken  by  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  at  his  ordina- 
tion. Affirmation  is  to  be  made  to  the  following  ques- 
tion; "Do  you  promise  to  preach  the  Word  of  God  in 
purity  and  sincerity  as  it  is  contained  in  the  Old  and  New 

96  Schory,  p.  7.    Kokritz,  in  "Fundamentals  I,"  p.  31. 

97  It  was  in  1848.  But  already  in  1841  the  "Deutscher  Evange- 
lischer  Kirchenverein  des  Westens"  had  adopted  a  confessional 
basis  in  which  it  accepted  "that  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, which  is  deposited  in  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  and  the  Evangelical  Reformed  Church  of  Ger- 
many, in  so  far  as  these  agree."  This  form  was  then  superceded 
by  the  above-quoted  paragraph.    See  Muecke,  as  cited,  p.  xi8. 


191 

Testament  and  promulgated  in  the  articles  of  faith 
adopted  by  our  Evangelical  Church  ?"««  These  articles  of 
faith  must  mean  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Con- 
fessions "in  so  far  as  they  agree" ;  a  specifically  Lutheran 
or  Calvinistic  teaching  in  all  the  points  of  disagreement, 
then,  would  lie  beyond  the  confessional  obligation,  and, 
therefore,  cannot  claim  more  weight  than  private 
opinion. 

It  is  evident  that  the  synod  in  organizing  itself  upon 
this  basis  was  hopeful  of  being  able  to  unite  Lutherans 
and  Reformed  in  one  organization.  Not  much  of  this  hope 
has  been  realized.  Rev.  J.  H.  Horstmann,  editor  of  the 
"Evangelical  Herald,"  writes:  "The  Evangelical  Synod 
was  founded  v/ith  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  unity  of 
the  spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace,  and  of  bringing  about 
organic  union  between  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches 
wherever  possible.^^  But  in  the  same  article  he  admits 
that  "there  is  no  longer  a  reasonable  possibility  of  real- 
izing the  aim  with  which  the  Evangelical  Synod  was 
founded"  (p.  260).  While  it  is  true  that  the  synod  has 
held  open  the  doors  for  Lutherans  and  Reformed  alike 
yet  its  constituency  is  made  up  chiefly  of  people  brought 
up  in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  Germany  and  their  de- 
scendants. In  the  seventy-five  years  of  its  history  it  has 
not  attracted  any  existing  organization  or  group  of  Luth- 
erans or  Reformed  here  in  America  to  its  platform.  The 
reason  lies  in  the  dualism  of  the  confessional  basis  which 
permeates  the  entire  official  and  private  literature  of  the 
synod  as  we  have  seen. 

Certainly  Lutheranism  cannot  settle  upon  the  Union 
principle,  and  from  all  that  we  know  of  its  genius,  it 
never  will.  It  has  been  said  that  there  was  a  time  when 
a  union  could  have  been  effected  with  the  old  General 
Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America.  But  this  is  an 
utter  mis  judgment  of  the  historical  situation.  The  old 
General  Synod,  while  very  liberal  with  regard  to  confes- 
sional matters  and  willing  to  fraternize  with  non-Luth- 

98  Evangelical  Book  of  Worship,  p.  225. 

99  Magazin  fuer  Evangelische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  July  1919. 

p.  259- 


192 

^rans,  nevertheless  watched  jealously  over  the  identity  of 
Lutheranism  in  America,  and  always  opposed,  not  only 
organic  union,  but  also  institutional  co-operation  with 
the  Reformed.^°°  Never  in  the  history  of  the  General 
Synod  was  there  a  prospect  for  a  union  on  the  basis  of 
anything  like  the  confessional  paragraph  of  the  German 
Evangelical  Synod.  There  might  have  been  a  union  on 
the  basis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  with  much  latitude 
of  interpretation,  but  that  would  not  have  kept  such  a 
Melanchthonian-Lutheran  body  from  developing  in  the 
direction  of  the  doctrinal  basis  as  formulated  by  the 
United  Lutheran  Church  in  America.  Lutheranism  is 
doctrinal  in  its  genius.  Facts  such  as  these  that  the  Me- 
lanchthon  Synod  and  the  Franckean  Synod  (district 
bodies  of  the  old  General  Synod),  organized  on  the  basis 
of  Melanchthonianism,  could  not  maintain  themselves, 
and  that  in  the  present  United  Norwegian  Synod  the  more 
pietistic  Hauge  Synod  was  absorbed  by  the  confessional 
elements — all  such  facts  carry  with  them  their  own  les- 
sons. At  times  and  in  certain  places,  Melanchthonianism 
has  been  a  ferment  in  Lutheran  theology,  but,  when  or- 
ganized upon  its  own  principles,  it  has  never  been  con- 
structive in  establishing  churches  with  the  element  of 
permanency.^"^ 

Next  to  the  Lutherans  the  nearest  to  the  German  Evan- 
gelical Synod  are  the  German  Reformed,  because  here, 
through  the  Bucero-Melanchthonian  bridges  and  through 
the  bond  of  German  pietism,  there  are  certain  points  of 
contact  and  avenues  of  approach. ^°^  But  even  though  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  is  mentioned  in  the  German  Evan- 
gelical confessional  basis,  the  German  Reformed  Church 
of  America  has  never  seriously  considered  a  union.  The 
dualism  between  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism  naturally 
stands  in  the  way.     Doctrinally  the  Reformed  Church  is 

100  See  Neve,  Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, 2nd  ed-,  p.  99  f. 

loi  See  the  very  interesting  remarks  on  this  subject  by  Kahnis 
in  "Der  Innere  Gang  des  Deutschen   Protestantismus,"  I,  p.   106. 

102  Dr.  Geo.  W-  Richard  of  the  Reformed  Seminary  at  Lan- 
caster, Pa.,  characterizes  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  "Calvinism 
modified  by  the  German  genius."  See  his  "Heidelberg  Catechism," 
p.  96,  cf.  103. 


193 

more  pliable  than  the  Lutheran,  yet  it  cannot  dispense 
with  theological  consistency  in  the  confessional  basis;  it 
cannot  ignore  its  history  and  the  History  of  Dogma. 

The  reason  for  failing  to  realize  the  original  aim  of  a 
union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  is  given  by  a 
member  of  the  synod  with  this  remark:  "We  have  not 
accomplished  a  real  union  between  Calvinism  and  Luth- 
eranism  in  our  own  church."^"^  The  fact  is,  the  time 
for  a  real  doctrinal  union  has  passed.^"*  And  another 
contributor  to  the  "Magazin,"  after  having  asked  whether 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  can  hope  to  become  the 
United  Evangelical  Church  of  America,  answers:  "A 
view  upon  all  that  we  call  historical  development  contra- 
dicts such  (dream).  Let  us  not  play  with  big  thoughts 
nor  intoxicate  ourselves  with  far-reaching  plans."^°^ 

Between  the  teachings  of  the  two  churches  of  the  Re- 
formation the  German  Evangelical  Synod  is  more  Luth- 
eran than  Reformed  in  its  doctrinal  tendency.  In  the 
evasiveness  of  expression  on  the  states  of  Christ  and  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  even  in  reference  to  the  Heidelberg 
Catchism  in  the  confessional  paragraph,  also  in  the  for- 
mal departure  from  the  words  of  Luther's  catechism,  the 
synod  does  not  speak  its  real  heart ;  all  these  elements  be- 
tray the  marks  of  mere  accommodation  to  the  union  prin- 

103  R.  Niebuhr  in  Magazin  fuer  Ev.  Theologie  und  Kirche, 
March  1919,  p.  127.  Rev.  J.  H.  Horstmann,  in  an  article  of  some 
fine  observations  under  the  title  "A  Study  of  the  Relationship  in 
Lutheranism  and  Calvinism"  in  the  same  periodical  (July  1919,  p. 
259  f.),  says,  after  referring  to  some  recently  accomplished  family 
unions :  "The  new  alignments  now  taking  place  are  only  making 
more  clear  the  two  antagonistic  elements  that  need  to  be  in- 
wardly reconciled  before  anything  like  outward  and  organic  union 
can  be  expected.  In  the  last  analysis  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism, 
which  divided  European  Protestantism  into  two  hostile  camps  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  still  remain  the  divisive  factors  in  the 
twentieth.  In  the  light  of  present  conditions  their  relationship, 
we  believe,  constitutes  a  vital  problem  of  Protestantism  in  Amer- 
ica."   Yes,  here  is  the  real  difficulty. 

104  May  we  again  call  attention  to  our  thoughts  on  pp.  36  and 
62  (special  print)  and  in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  1918,  p.  570  and  1919, 
p.  211. 

105  J.  Krause,  in  Magazin,  Sept.,  1919,  p.  340:  "Spielen  wir  doch 
nicht  mit  grossen  Gedanken,  berauschen  wir  uns  nicht  an  weit- 
auschanenden  Plaenen." 


194 

ciple.  Its  Lutheran  spirit  comes  to  expression  in  the 
doctrine  of  Baptism  (in  connection  with  a  strong  appre- 
ciation of  confirmation),  in  the  observation  of  the  church 
year,  in  the  composition  of  the  church  hymnal,  in  the 
contents  and  the  temper  of  its  preaching,  in  its  devotional 
literature,  and  in  its  Inner  Mission  work.^°^  The  non- 
Lutheran  features  of  the  synod  are  seen  chiefly  in  its  Me- 
lanchthonian  (humanistic)  aversion  to  the  Lutheran 
Church's  doctrinal  definiteness,^°^  in  its  concessions  to  the 
Reformed  in  the  confessional  paragraph,  in  the  cate- 
chism and  in  the  ministerial  acts,  particularly  regarding 
the  Lord's  Supper.^"*  Yet  with  all  this  there  is  in  the 
synod  an  outspoken  antipathy  to  what  we  have  called 
"high  Calvinism"  ;^*'^  especially  against  the  legalism  of 
the  Calvinistic  churches  and  their  mixing  of  Church  and 
State.^^°  This  feeling  has  been  intensified  through  ob- 
servations during  the  world  war.^" 

io6  This  judgment  may  seem  to  be  out  of  harmony  with  what 
we  wrote  sixteen  years  ago  in  our  publication  "1st  zwischen  den 
Unierten  Amerikas  und  der  Landeskirche  Preussens  kein  Unter- 
schied?"  (cf.  i8).  But  when  the  remark  was  made  there  that  in 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  the  Reformed  element  prevails, 
we  had  in  mind  chiefly  the  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
matters  related  to  this  doctrine,  taking  the  position  of  Julius 
Stahl  that  in  a  real  union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed  it  is 
always  the  Lutheran  side  that  has  to  make  the  concession.  This 
is  our  position  to-day,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  in  its  general 
character,  doctrinal  and  practical,  the  synod  is  more  Reformed 
than  Lutheran. 

107  Cf.  p.  42  (separate  print),  Luth.  Quarterly,  1918,  p.  577;  also 
separate  print  p.  194  f.,  Luth.  Quarterly,  1919,  p.  385  f. 

108  The  attitude  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  especially  regretable 
from  the  Lutheran  point  of  view.  Luther  and  the  consistent  theo- 
logians of  the  Lutheran  Church  have  always  regarded  an  unam- 
biguous attitude  to  the  Real  Presence  as  one  of  the  chief  tests  of 
Lutheranism.  (Cf.  reprint  p.  30,  also  p.  14  f. ;  in  Lutheran  Quarterly. 
Oct.  1918,  p.  564  f. ;  also  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Jan'y  1918,  p.  112  f.) 
And  it  may  also  be  said  that  the  Union  principle  as  such,  namely, 
the  principle  of  accommodation  in  doctrinal  matters,  begets  a 
practice  different  from  the  practice  that  characterizes  the  Luth- 
eran Church. 

109  Cf.  our  discourses  p.  40  ff. ;  Luth.  Quarterly,  1918,  p.  574  ff- 
no    See  Horstmann  in  "Magazin,"  November  1919,  p.  430  &■ 

III  See  minutes  of  Kansas  District,  1919,  p.  6;  of  Nebraska 
District,  1919,  pp.  14,  20,  21 ;  cf.  Michigan  District,  p.  28.  See  also 
the  excellent  address  of  Prof.  K.  Bauer  at  Elmhurst,  111.,  (pub- 
lished 1917)  "Der  Freiheitskampf  der  Reformation  in  Lichte  der 
Gegenwart." 


195 

In  closing  our  discussion  we  cannot  help  feeling  con- 
vinced that  the  organization  of  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod  upon  the  confessional  paragraph  here  under  con- 
sideration has  proved  itself  a  misfit  to  church  conditions 
as  they  have  later  developed.  The  work  of  the  synod 
has  been  chiefly  among  the  Lutherans ;  comparatively  few 
Reformed  have  sought  membership,  perhaps  not  more 
than  have  found  their  way  into  the  various  synods  of  the 
United  Lutheran  Church.  When  at  the  time  of  the  Chi- 
cago World's  Fair  (1893)  Dr.  A.  Stoecker,  former  court- 
preacher  in  Berlin,  visited  in  America  and  co-operated 
especially  with  the  ministers  of  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod,  it  took  this  keen  and  practical  churchman  only  a 
short  time  to  see  that  mistake.  He  said  that  the  synod 
should  have  established  itself  simply  upon  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  Luther's  Catechism.^ ^=^  If  this  had  been 
done,  if  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  had  been  omitted  from 
the  confessional  basis,  then  the  synod  would  have  been  in 
German  what  for  a  long  time  the  old  General  Synod  was 
in  English,  the  "broad  church"  of  Lutheranism.  Then 
the  way  would  have  been  open  at  any  time  for  a  consis- 
tent and  natural  historic  development  towards  a  more 
confessional  position.  As  it  is  now,  the  approach  even 
to  the  mildest  bodies  of  Lutheranism  is  made  difficult  be- 
cause of  a  confessional  basis  which  no  Lutheran  Synod 
can  recognize  without  denying  its  faith;  not  to  speak  of 
the  misdevelopment  which  the  membership  of  the  body 
has  suffered  under  the  influence  of  the  dualism  expressed 
in  that  basis. 

The  fathers  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  evidently 
had  in  mind  to  transplant  the  Church  Union  of  Germany 
to  American  soil.^'^  But  then  was  a  time  altogether  dif- 
ferent from  to-day,  a  time  of  strong  German  immigra- 

112  Cf.  Koch,  Wie  lange  hinket  ihr  auf  beiden  Seiten?,  p.  14  f- 

113  Sixteen  years  ago  Dr.  Kawerau,  then  professor  in  Berlin 
and  member  of  the  Evangelische  Oberkirchenrat,  said  in  a  criti- 
cal review  of  the  writer's  pamphlet  on  the  Union:  The  Church 
Union  of  Germany  is  a  structure  (Kirchengebilde)  which  cannot 
be  transplanted  to  a  country  where  the  historical  conditions  have 
not  been  the  same. 


196 

tion  when  it  seemed  that  there  would  never  be  an  end  to 
German  church  work  in  America.  Seventy-five  years 
ago  there  was  little  thought  of  a  time  when  the  national 
development  towards  the  English  would  seriously  affect 
the  churches  of  foreign  extraction.  Neither  was  there 
any  thought  of  a  time  when  the  denominational  problem 
would  be  altogether  changed.  The  problem  to-day  for 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  is  no  longer  whether  Ger- 
man Protestantism,  that  is,  the  followers  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  those  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
can  be  united  in  one  organization;  but  the  question  now 
is,  in  the  linguistically  transitional  development  of  the 
body :  Can  the  milder  type  of  German  Protestantism,  doc- 
trinally  Bucero-Melanchthonian,  but  religiously  Luthero- 
mystical  in  character,  enter  into  a  wedlock  with  "high 
Calvinism"  in  the  form  of  Scotch  Presbyterianism,  or 
with  the  churches  of  the  type  of  American  Methodism? 
It  is  this  problem  with  which  the  German  Evangelical 
Synod  of  to-day  sees  itself  confronted.  In  the  face  of 
this  question  some  of  the  younger  men  advise  going  to 
Geneva,  others  insist  on  going  to  Wittenberg,  and  the 
majority,  because  of  the  danger  in  such  movements, 
urges  continuance  as  an  independent  organization.^^* 

The  Lutheran  Church  is  justified  in  having  a  special 
interest  in  the  final  outcome  of  the  development  of  this 
body,  because  by  far  the  most  of  its  old  members  were 
Lutherans.  Because  of  its  entire  isolation  from  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  America,  resulting  from  literary 
conflict  and  practical  friction,  it  is  quite  natural  that  in 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod,  especially  among  its 
younger  ministry,  the  leaning  to  the  Reformed  side  of 
American  Protestantism  has  been  growing.  Another 
generation  may  land  the  synod  in  the  Calvinistic  camp. 
Is  there  no  way  of  bringing  about  a  touch  between  the 

114  See  in  Magazin,  Mar.  1919,  p.  125  flF.,  the  article  by  Niebuhr, 
"Where  Shall  We  Go?"  also  Minutes  of  Nebraska  District,  1919. 
p.  14  (6,  c.)  In  Magazin  of  May,  1919,  p.  194,  see  the  article  of 
Henninger,  "Why  Go  At  All?"  Cf.  Koch,  Wie  lange  hinket  ihr 
auf  beiden  Seiten?  p.  7  fif. 


197 

German  Evangelical  Synod  and  American  Lutheranism? 
The  development  in  the  Evangelical  Synod  has  been  of 
such  a  nature  that  at  the  present  time  union  would  be  an 
impossibility.  But  if  the  synod  could  see  its  way  clear 
to  establish  itself  upon  the  Augsburg  Confession  only, 
then  there  might  develope  a  communion  of  church  inter- 
ests which  could  be  strengthened  by  free  conferences 
that  might  lead  us  more  and  more  to  a  common  under- 
standing in  confessional  matters. 

Some  further  lessons  suggested  by  this  chapter,  as  well 
as  preceding  ones,  will  be  given  in  a  closing  article. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Reflections  Regarding  Present-Day  Union  Movements 
in  America. 

Literature:  The  Christian  Union  Quarterly,  edited  by 
Dr.  Peter  Ainslie,  504  N.  Fulton  Ave.,  Baltimore,  Md. 
We  call  attention  to  all  the  issues  of  1919,  especially  to 
that  of  January.  See  also  the  January  and  April  issues 
of  1920.  The  references  in  this  chapter  are  chiefly  to  the 
preceding  chapters  of  our  series. 

/.  The  Problem  of  Church  Union  in  America  is  not 
the  same  as  in  Germany. 

In  our  examination  of  the  union  movements  among  the 
Germans  we  had  a  practical  end  in  view.  We  wanted  to 
furnish  a  historical  material  from  which  lessons  might 
be  drawn  for  an  attitude  to  movements  in  America,  in 
which  the  Lutheran  Church  is  counted  upon  to  enter  into 
union  with  the  Reformed  group  of  American  Protestant- 
ism. We  shall  open  these  concluding  reflections  with  a 
consideration  of  the  Union  problems  as  we  have  it  in 
America. 

In  Germany  it  was  the  aim  of  the  friends  of  Church 
Union  to  unite  only  the  Lutherans  and  the  German-Re- 
formed. In  the  second  chapter  of  our  series  of  investi- 
gations we  have  made  clear  what  we  understand  by  the 
"German-Reformed."  It  is  a  type  of  German  Protest- 
antism, which  originated  through  the  early  influences  of 
Zwingli  upon  some  of  the  Southern  parts  of  Germany. 
This  influence  was  especially  strong  in  the  so-called 
Cities  of  Upper  Germany  with  Bucer  at  Strasburg  as 
their  leading  factor.  It  was  a  movement  which  later 
was  controlled  by  Calvin  and  spread  to  the  Palatinate,  to 
Bremen,  Nassau,  Anhalt,  Hesse-Cassel,  Lippe,  Branden- 
burg, to  parts  of  East  Friesland  and  to  the  Rhine  Pro- 
vinces where  it  was  found  when  the  Hohenzollerns  came 

198 


199 

to  rule.'  The  confessional  bond  of  union  was  the  Heid- 
elberg Catechism.  They  held  to  Calvin's  teaching  on  the 
means  of  grace  but  as  a  rule  did  not  follow  him  in  his 
doctrine  of  predestination.  In  the  German-Reformed 
we  have  a  Calvinism  "modified  by  the  German  genius" 
(Richards).  In  some  of  the  above  mentioned  dominions 
(in  Anhalt,  for  instance)  the  prevailing  type  was  nearer 
to  Melanchthonianism  than  to  what  we  would  call  genu- 
inely Reformed.  It  must  be  understood  that  union  in 
Germany — and  the  same  is  true  of  the  German  Evan- 
gelical Synod  of  North  America —  means  a  union  of  the 
Lutherans  with  a  type  of  the  Reformed  in  which  there 
is,  as  a  rule,  an  absence  of  "high  Calvinism,- 

When  in  America  the  Lutheran  Church  is  invited  to 
become  a  partner  in  union  movements,  a  far  more  com- 
prehensive program  is  planned.  In  the  movement 
known  as  "The  Call  for  a  World  Conference  on  Faith 
and  Order  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church"  (1910), 
as  also  in  the  "Association  for  the  Promotion  of  Christ- 
ian Unity"  of  the  Disciples  (1910),  invitations  are  ex- 
tended even  to  the  Greek  Catholic  and  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic churches.^  And  all  Protestant  churches  "who  accept 
Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  Savior"  are  included,  of  course. 
In  the  "Call  for  a  Conference  on  Organic  Union  of  the 
Evangelical  Protestant  Bodies  in  America  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Church"  (Dec.  1918)*  the  invitation  was  to  all 
the  Protestant  churches  in  so  far  as  they  are  "evangel- 
ical" or  '"orthodox."  The  following  churches  partici- 
pated actively  in  the  first  conference  held  at  Phila- 
delphia    1919:     Episcopalians,     Presbyterians,     United 


1  We  refer  to  Dr.  James  I.  Good,  The  Origin  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  Germany;  also  his  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
Germany;  also  his  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  its  Newest  Light. 

2  Cf.  chapter  two,  sec.  vii. 

3  See  Peter  Ainslie,  "Towards  Christian  Unity,"  p.  48;  also  If 
Not  a  United  Church — What? Also  in  Christian  Union  Quarterly 
Oct.  1920,  pp.  135,  119  f.  Regarding  Rome,  see  in  the  minutes  of 
the  last  General  Synod  (1917),  pp.123  ff-.  Dean  Dr.  Bauslin's  criti- 
cism of  the  letter  of  Cardinal  Gaspari  on  behalf  of  Pope  Benedict, 
written  as  an  answer  to  overtures  of  one  of  the  conferences  on 
"Faith  and  Order." 

4  See  The  Christian  Union  Quarterly,  all  issues  of  1919. 


200 

Presbyterians,  Reformed,  German  Evangelical  Synod, 
Congregationalists,  Methodists,  United  Brethren,  Mora- 
vians, Baptists,  Disciples  of  Christ,  Society  of  Friends. 
A  reading  of  these  names  reminds  us  at  once  of  the  con- 
flicting confessional  positions  to  be  reconciled  in  such  an 
"organic  union,"  If  the  Lutherans  should  join  such  a 
movement  the  problem  would  be  forbiddingly  difficult. 
The  Lutheran  confessional  positions  as  expressed  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  1531  would  have  to  be  recon- 
ciled not  only  with  the  spiritualistic  conception  of  the 
means  of  grace,  as  was  the  case  in  Germany,  but  also 
with  the  predestinarianism  of  high  Calvinism  or  with  the 
Arminianism  of  the  opposite  wing  of  Reformed  Protest- 
antism and  with  the  standpoints  which  emphasize  such 
matters  as  church  organization,  mode  of  baptism,  etc. 
There  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  full  Protestant 
Union  in  America,  especially  when  the  Lutheran  Church 
is  included,  that  were  absent  in  the  union  endeavors  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Among  these  we  should 
also  count  the  teaching  and  practice  of  churches  which 
may  be  called  daughters  of  the  Reformed  Church :  Metho- 
dists, the  Baptists  of  many  kinds,  and  the  Quaekers, 
Menonites  etc. 

The  Lutheran  Church,  as  long  as  it  has  not  sacrificed 
its  own  genius,  is  fundamentally  opposed  to  confessional 
indifferentism  on  all  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  pertain- 
ing to  the  "Gospel."  Our  reference  is  to  the  use  of  this 
term  in  Art.  VII  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

To  show  how  impossible  it  is  for  the  Lutheran  Church 
to  fall  into  line  with  sentiments  expressed  at  such  union 
conferences  we  shall  quote  from  a  few  of  the  papers  that 
were  read  at  the  above  mentioned  conference  in  Philadel- 
phia, called  by  the  Presbyterians.^ 

The  representative  of  the  Congregational  Churches 
said:  "There  has  been  a  general  surrender  of  the  idea 
that  a  church  must  have  an  elaborate  creedal  basis  The 
historic  creeds  need  not  be  repudiated.  They  are  honored 

S     Published  in  the  Christian  Union  Quarterly,  April  1919. 


201 

monuments  of  the  faith  of  our  fathers  and  witnesses  to 
the  apprehension  of  Christianity  of  those  in  spiritual 
succession  to  whom  we  gladly  stand.    But  most  Protest- 
ants are  satisfied,  as  a  present  practical  test  of  com- 
munion, with  a  creed  which  embraces  only  the  central 
affirmations  of  the  Christian  faith.    We  are  thus  deliv- 
ered from  the  necessity  of  demanding  that  our  brother 
accept  all  our  philosophy  of  the  universe."^     He  who  is 
familiar  with  customary  deliverances  on  this  subject  in 
pulpit  and  church  press  knows  that  there  is  very  much 
unexpressed  thought  back  of  such  a  deliverance.     The 
Lutheran  Church  could  not  subscribe  to  these  thoughts, 
without  committing  outright  suicide.     In  the  same  ad- 
dress we  read  :"The  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  will 
be  administered  by  each  local  church  in  the  mode  of  its 
selection,  but  with  full  agreement  that  the  mode  of  each 
sister  church  shall  have  complete  recognition  and  that 
all  disciples  of  Christ  shall  be  equally  welcome  to  their 
privileges."    This  is  to  satisfy  the  immersionists  on  their 
"mode"  of  Baptism;  but  how  about  the  far  more  im- 
portant doctrine  of  Baptism  ?     There  seems  to  be  wide 
agreement  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  is  entirely 
a  matter  of  indifference.    The  reader  for  the  Protestant 
Episcopalian    Church,   at   that   convention,    quoted   the 
positions  of  the  "Conference  on  Faith  and  Order"  and 
insisted  upon  the  recognition  of  at  least  "the  fact  of 
episcopacy,  and  not  any  theory  as  to  its  character."    On 
matters  of  doctrine  this  church  is  willing  to  regard  as  a 
basis  for  union  ''the  Nicene  Creed  as  a  sufficient  state- 
ment of  the  Christian  faith."     This  excludes  a  great 
sphere  of  doctrinal  interest,  the  conflict  between  Au- 
gustinianism  and  Pelagianism  and  the  conflict  between 
semi-Pelagianism  and  the  doctrine  of  grace  as  taught  by 
the  Reformers.    All  this  is  to  be  treated  as  if  on  the  great 
theme  of  the  Reformation  the  Church  of  Christ  has  had 
no  special  experience  and  needs  no  guide  for  its  teaching. 
The  speaker  for  the  Disciples  of  Christ  quoted  as  his 
church's  position :  "The  Bible  and  the  Bible  alone  is  the 

6    Christian  Union  Quarterly,  April,  1919.  P-  46. 


202 

religion  of  the  Protestants."  This  could  only  mean :  the 
Bible  without  confessional  interpretation  of  its  teaching 
by  the  Church.  The  united  Church,  then,  would  be  asked 
to  make  no  profession  of  what  the  Bible  teaches.  The 
speaker  appealed  to  "the  right  of  private  interpreta- 
tion."^ He  continued:  "The  various  communions  have 
their  systems  of  theology,  based  upon  interpretations  of 
the  Word  of  God,  and  which  they  adopt  as  standards  of 
their  respective  churches."  "Since  all  agree  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  the  Word  of  God,  why  could  not  the 
Scriptures  alone  be  sufficient  ?  They  appear  to  have 
been  so  in  the  early  church.  Why  should  they  not  be  for 
the  Church  now  ?" 

Note:  We  have  answered  these  questions  in  chapter 
VI,  8:  "Scripture  versus  Confession."  Yet  we  feel 
tempted  to  reply  to  these  remarks  here  by  saying:  (1) 
The  Church  is  forced  to  a  distinct  authoritative  or 
symbolical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  because  in- 
dividuals and  communions  with  misleading  teachings 
also  claim  the  Bible.  Adoption  by  a  church  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  at  the  same  time  refusing  to  interpret  them 
confessionally  as  a  bond  of  union  is  a  negative  or  neutral 
and  not  a  positive  adoption.  (2)  The  early  church,  in 
its  conflicts  with  error  (Ebionitism,  Gnosticism,  the 
pneumatics  in  general  and  an  endless  number  of  sects), 
was  also  forced  to  give  an  authoritative  interpretation  of 
the  canon.  We  have  the  result  of  such  creed-making  in  the 
"Rules  of  Faith,"  which  gradually  issued  into  the 
Apostles  and  the  Nicene  Creeds.  (3)  A  grown  man 
cannot  be  forced  back  to  the  state  of  the  development  of 
the  boy.  The  Church  of  to-day  has  been  led  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  a  rich  doctrinal  experience  of  the  fundamen- 
tal truths  of  Scripture.  We  cannot  ask  the  Church  to 
ignore  all  this  in  order  to  return,  in  a  kind  of  Christian 

7  In  chapter  VI  we  discussed  the  question  how  this  thoroughly 
Lutheran  principle  is  to  be  harmonized  with  the  recognition  of  a 
common  Creed  for  the  Church.  See  Luth.  Quarterly,  Oct.  1920, 
pp.  428  f¥.     (Reprint,  pp.  157  ff.) 


203 

agnosticism,  to  the  primitive  knowledge  of  the  Christian- 
ity of  the  post-apostolic  fathers. 

Surely,  as  far  as  the  Lutheran  Church  is  concerned, 
there  will  never  be  a  union  of  Protestantism  if  such  in- 
sistence is  continued  upon  indifferentism  regarding  the 
matters  pertaining  to  the  "Gospel."  The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession (Art.  VII)  defines  the  Church  as  "the  congrega- 
tion of  saints,  in  which  the  Gospel  is  rightly  taught  and 
the  Sacraments  rightly  administered."  And  it  will  be 
found  that  the  matters  pertaining  to  the  Gospel  do  also 
include  the  conception  of  the  means  of  grace,  on  which 
the  great  historical  churches  of  the  Reformation,  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  of  various  names,  have  gone 
apart.  It  is  in  the  field  of  soteriology  with  special  regard 
to  the  means  of  grace  where  we  need  an  understanding. 
Such  things  as  modes  of  Baptism^  and  ordination  are  no 
essentials.  The  question  of  church  government  presents 
a  problem  of  practical  diflSculty,  of  course  Here  the 
democratic  conception  ought  to  receive  large  emphasis. 
But  the  fundamental  problem  of  organic  union  is  a  doc- 
trinal problem.  It  is  the  old  question  of  how  to  overcome 
the  doctrinal  difference  between  Lutheranism  and  Cal- 
vinism. We  repeat  that  previously  quoted  remark  of 
Rev.  J.  H.  Horstmann  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod 
(chapter  VI,  foot  note^°^)  :  "The  new  alignments 
now  taking  place  (reference  is  to  the  family  unions)  are 
only  making  more  clear  the  two  antagonistic  elements 
that  need  to  be  inwardly  reconciled  before  anj^thing  like 
outward  and  organic  union  can  be  expected.  In  the  last 
analysis  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  which  divided 
European  Protestantism  into  two  hostile  camps  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  still  remain  the  divisive  factors  in 
twentieth."  We  know  that  modern-liberalistic  theology 
with  the  Ritschlian  "experience"  theory  and  the  "value 
judgments"  as  the  formal  principle  laughs  at  the  sug- 

8  A  friend  who  read  the  manuscript  remarked  as  follows :  "The 
mode  of  Baptism  is  in  abstracto  indifferent,  but  not  so  now  in 
concreto.  The  moment  Baptists  insist  on  immersion  they  are  in 
error,  and  the  mode  ceases  to  be  a  minor  point."    This  is  correct. 


204 

gestion  of  returning  to  a  discussion  of  the  old  differences 
between  Lutherans  and  Reformed.  But  it  is  the  only 
way  for  trying  whether  it  is  possible  so  late  in  histoid 
to  bring  about  the  union  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Re- 
formed wings  of  Protestantism.'' 

If  we  try  to  analyze  the  situation  without  undue  op- 
timism, then  we  must  say  that  a  union  of  American  Pro- 
testantism does  not  seem  to  be  in  sight.  The  constantly 
growing  liberalism  in  the  Reformed  churches  and  their 
daughters  is  an  added  obstacle.  At  present  there  is  only 
one  kind  of  union  that  seems  to  be  within  reach.  That 
is  the  family  union.  The  reading  of  a  number  of  the  ad- 
dresses at  the  above  mentioned  conference  in  Philadel- 
phia on  organic  union  has  confirmed  us  in  this  question. 
Dr.  W.  M.  Roberts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  spoke  of 
a  "consolidation  among  the  churches  of  the  Reformed 
Faith,  which  are  most  nearly  akin  in  doctrine  and  or- 
ganization," (p.  32).  Dr.  Wm.  M.  Anderson,  in  speaking 
for  the  United  Presbyterians,  said :  "Our  denomination 
stands  committed  to  a  federated  agreement  uniting  all  of 
the  Reformed  churches  in  America  holding  the  Presby- 
terian system"  (p.  39).  There  is  already  an  "Alliance 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  holding  the  Presbyterian  Sys- 
tem," we  read  in  the  address  of  Dr.  R.  W.  Miller  for  the 
Reformed  Church  (p.  58),  and  he  says  that  his  church 
"is  ready  for  an  organic  union  of  the  Presbyterian-Re- 
formed family  of  churches"  and  adds:  "These  ten  or 
more  bodies,  by  reason  of  history,  polity  and  doctrine, 
are  practically  one  and  should  be  organically  united  to- 
gether" (p.  59).  And  Dr.  J.  W.  Hamilton  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  said  at  that  same  convention: 
''There  is  one  very  important  reason  why  you  should  not 
insist  upon  our  going  into  this  union  with  you  just  now. 
We  are  in  the  business  of  organic  union  among  our- 
selves  "  (p.  55  f.  ) .    The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the 

9  It  is  late  in  history,  because  the  opposing  views  of  the  two 
sides  have  crystalized  into  dogmas  on  the  foundation  of  which  a 
large  theological  literature  has  sprung  up  and  a  different  church 
life  has  developed.    Cf.  chap.  Ill,  close  of  sec.  IV. 


205 

Lutheran  Church  in  America.  The  aim  is  to  unite  the 
Lutheran  synods  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  and 
to  draw  the  Lutherans  of  the  world  into  a  common  under- 
standing. Considerable  progress  has  already  been  made. 
In  1917  three  Norwegian  synods  united  into  one  large 
body.  Three  years  later  the  pre-eminently  English 
speaking  Lutheran  bodies  (General  Synod,  General 
Council,  United  Synod  South)  consolidated  themselves 
into  the  United  Lutheran  Church  in  America.  And  at 
present  the  synods  of  more  German  constituencies  are 
also  trying  to  arrive  at  agreements.  All  such  movements 
for  "family  union"  are  to  be  commended  for  two  reasons : 
1)  They  are  proof  of  a  feeling  in  the  Church  that  small 
and  petty  matters  must  not  stand  in  the  way  of  union. 
But  2)  they  also  show  that  the  historic  churches  of  Pro- 
testantism, so  far  as  they  are  not  too  much  honeycombed 
with  rationalism,  will  not  dismiss  with  indifference  the 
matters  which  in  the  light  of  Scripture  testimony  and  of 
historic  development  are  of  fundamental  importance; 
these  differences  must  be  faced  and  settled  before  there 
can  be  union.'" 

IL    Some  Motives  for  Union  Examined. 

Much  light  is  shed  upon  the  merits  of  present-day 
union  movements  by  an  examination  of  their  motives. 
Some  of  these  motives  are  right  and  some  are  question- 
able and  even  wrong. 

We  shall  first  mention  three  truly  Christian  motives 
and  discuss  their  applicability:  (1)  Chief  among  these 
is  the  exhortation  that  comes  from  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Christ  prayed  that  His  followers  "all  may  be  one" 
(John  17:21);  Paul  expressed  it  as  the  goal  for  the 
Church  as  the  "body  of  Christ"  that  "we  all  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith"  (Eph.  4:13)  ;  and  He  recognizes  only 
"one  Lord,  one  faith  one  Baptism,  one  Lord  and  Father 
of  all"  (Eph.  4:5,  6).  Followers  of  Jesus  and  believers 
in  the  testimony  of  His  apostle  cannot  be  opposed  to  a 

10  See  the  editorial  in  The  American  Lutheran  Survey,  April 
14,  1920,  on  "Basic  Lines  for  Christian  Union." 


2oe 

true  Christian  union.  But  it  must  be  a  Christian  union,  a 
union  in  the  "faith"  (Eph.  4:13).  It  is  the  objective 
faith  that  is  here  meant,  the  fides  quae  creditur,  the  con- 
fession of  faith ;  not  faith  as  the  expression  of  spiritual 
life  (fides  qim  creditur),  which  on  this  side  of  eternity 
never  could  be  made  a  condition  of  outward  Church 
union.  The  correctness  of  our  contention  that  in  Eph.  4 
Paul  speaks  of  the  objective  faith  is  proved  by  verse  15  : 
**that  we  henceforth  be  no  more  children,  tossed  to  and 
fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine"  etc. ; 
"but  speaking  the  truth  in  love "  Many  zealous  advo- 
cates of  the  cause  of  Christian  union,  in  quoting  the  above 
passages,  overlook  entirely  that  it  is  the  union  in  the  truth 
of  God's  Word  that  is  meant.  The  first  duty  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  faithful  to  the  truth  ''once  delivered  unto 
the  saints."  "If  ye  continue  in  my  Word,  then  ye  are  my 
disciples  indeed,  and  ye  shall  know  the  truth  and  the 
truth  shall  make  you  free"  (John  9:31,  32).  Those  that 
cry  for  union  at  any  price  forget  entirely  the  emphasis 
which  in  the  Scriptures  is  placed  upon  divine  truth 
(dX-qdeia)  as  the  first  fundamental  requisite  for  spiritual 
work.  Read  Psalm  86 :11 ;  Isaias  8 :20 ;  James  1 :18 ;  John 
17:17;  8:31,  32;  Eph.  6:14;  2  John  4;  Eph.  4:14.  And 
in  connection  with  these  passages  see  Matth.  7:15  ff; 
24:24  and  1  John  4:1.  By  a  false  union  we  would  make 
error  to  co-exist  with  truth  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
suggestion  to  find  a  union  by  "agreeing  to  disagree," 
when  this  is  to  cover  matters  pertaining  to  salvation,  is 
unworthy  of  the  Church.  The  Church  is  not  a  social  or 
a  literary  club  for  the  exchange  of  religious  and  ethical 
views,  but  it  is  a  divine  institution  "in  which  the  Gospel 
is  rightly  taught  and  the  Sacraments  rightly  adminis- 
tered" (Augsb'g  Conf.,  Art.  VII). 

In  the  appreciation  of  the  Word  there  is  between  the 
Lutheran  Church  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Reformed 
churches  on  the  other  that  difference  which  we  discussed 
in  chapter  VI,  3,  C.  But  in  this  present  day  this  confes- 
sional difference  is  augmented  by  a  difference  which  has 
come  in  through   modern  theology:   To   the  Lutheran 


207 

Church  the  Scriptures  are  the  source  of  truth,  and  the 
Word  as  such  is  a  power  unto  salvation  and  the  seed  of 
regeneration,  the  Holy  Spirit  always  accompanying  the 
Word.    Modern  theology — our  reference  is  to  Ritschlian- 
ism — has  arrived  at  an  altogether  different  conception  of 
the  Scriptures.     The  Ritschlians  see  the  value  of  the 
Bible  for  the  Christian  chiefly  in  this  that  it  reflects  for 
our  inspiration  and  warning  the  whole  variety  of  human 
individuality,  of  human  virtues  and  failings,  of  human 
life  and  endeavor.    The  Bible  is  not  any  more  authorita- 
tive, but  is,  at  best,  only  helpful  for  the  understanding  of 
our  own  inner  life.    It  is  a  kind  of  a  commentary  on  the 
personal  religious  life  of  the  Christian.      The  objective 
faith  is  not  a  matter  of  interest  anymore.    This  must  be 
the  explanation  for  the  fact  that  in  quoting  the  exhorta- 
tions for  union  in  the  Scriptures  so  many  overlook  alto- 
gether the  demand  that  it  must  be  a  union  in  the  truth. 
The  Lutheran  Church  has  so  far  refused  to  abandon  the 
"formal  principle"  of  the  Reformation,  while  in  the  Re- 
formed churches  there  have  been  large  concessions  to  the 
new  theology.    No  wonder,  therefore,  that  for  the  Luth- 
eran Church  the  real  obstacles  in  the  way  of  union  are 
today  harder  to  be  overcome  than  at  the  time  of  the  Leip- 
zig Colloquy  in  the  seventeenth  century   (cf.  chapt.  Ill, 
sect.  IV). 

To  establish  our  position  against  misunderstanding  on 
the  point  here  under  discussion  we  say  again:  The  de- 
mand of  Christian  union  is  Scriptural.  No  Christian 
can  be  in  principle  opposed  to  the  union  of  the 
Christian  churches.  But  it  must  be  a  union  in  the  truth. 
It  is  because  the  modern  movements  have  ignored  this 
demand  that  the  Lutheran  Church  has  been  unable  to  co- 
operate. 

(2)  The  children  of  God  through  the  ages  and  in  the 
various  churches  have  been  and  are  longing  for  a  union 
in  the  faith  ("one  faith,"  "one  Baptism.").  To  satisfy 
this  longing  and  to  contribute  to  the  realization  of  this 
hope  is  also  a  true  motive  for  union  endeavors.  The 
thought  that  many  true  Christians  are  praying  for  union 


208 

should  lead  the  Church,  especially  its  leaders,  to  repu- 
diate any  division  which  is  based  on  small  and  petty  mat- 
ters, such  as  organization,  mode  of  Baptism,  etc.,  or 
on  teachings  which  in  the  light  of  the  analogy  of  the 
faith  (Rom.  12 :6)  cannot  establish  articles  of  faith. 

(3)  Among  the  motives  for  Church  union  there  is  one 
which  we  shall  here  describe  and  try  to  review  with  criti- 
cism. It  is  said  that  the  various  churches,  in  their  separ- 
ate existence,  have  developed  certain  charisms  and  graces 
which  after  a  union  would  become  the  common  posses- 
sion of  the  whole  Church. 

The  Danish  bishop  Martensen^^  devotes  a  special  chap- 
ter to  the  ethical  peculiarities  of  the  Lutheran  and  the 
Reformed  churches.  The  Lutheran  Church,  he  says,  has 
brought  out  in  the  Christian  life  of  its  members  the 
evangelical  freedom  of  the  Christian  man ;  the  Reformed, 
as  followers  of  Calvin,  have  been  strong  in  organization. 
Lutheranism,  again,  in  cultivating  the  type  of  Mary  sit- 
ting at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  has  shown  a  special  gift  for  the 
development  of  the  inner  Christian  life,  and  in  conse- 
quence has  shown  its  strength  in  contemplation,  mysti- 
cism, in  religious  song  (chorals),  in  the  forms  of  worship 
and  church  art ;  the  Reformed,  with  a  preference  for  the 
type  of  Martha,  have  shown  a  gift  for  the  development 
of  outward  activity  which  has  expressed  itself  in  great 
missionary  undertakings,  in  Christian  propaganda,  in 
Bible  and  tract  societies.  Martensen  himself  suggests 
that  the  characteristics  which  he  is  discussing  can  hard- 
ly, at  least  not  directly,  be  traced  back  to  the  doctrinal 
differences  of  the  two  churches.  This  is  correct.  Ele- 
ments of  practical  life,  that  can  be  traced  as  flowing  out 
of  erroneous  doctrinal  positions,  such  as  a  legalistic  con- 
founding of  Law  and  Gospel,  or  a  misconceiving  of  the 
relation  between  Church  and  state,  can  never  be  counted 
among  the  charisms  and  graces,  no  matter  how  great 
they  may  appear  to  the  superficial  observer ;  on  the  other 
hand,  the  church  which  is  established  upon  the  Scrip- 

II     Christian   Ethics,  German  edition,  vol.  I,  p.  54  f. 


209 


tures  will  produce  all  the  charisms.  This  is  funda- 
mental. However — and  here  is  the  element  of  truth  in 
the  thoughts  of  Martensen — ,  besides  the  endowments  of 
a  church,  which  have  their  root  in  a  special  comprehen- 
sion of  Scripture  truth,  there  are  in  the  various  churches 
also  the  elements  that  must  be  traced  to  the  peculiarities 
of  the  founders,  even  to  the  nationality  from  which  they 
sprang.  Luther  was  a  German  mystic  and  as  such  a 
veritable  embodiment  of  that  untranslateable  German 
"Gemuet"  which  accounts  for  so  much  of  that  wonderful 
religious  depth  in  the  German  chorals  and  in  the  devo- 
tional literature  of  the  Lutheran  Church;  Calvin  unre- 
lenting in  his  logic,  was  stern  and  practical,  with  a  genius 
for  organization,  in  all  of  which  he  had  a  powerful  appeal 
to  the  Anglo-Saxon  mind.  Lutheranism  is  mystical,  Cal- 
vinism is  practical,  Methodism  is  aggressive,  and  so  on. 
This  it  is  what  many  advocates  of  union  have  in  mind 
when  they  say  that  the  Una  Sancta,  as  a  united  Church, 
would  be  able  to  present  itself  to  the  Lord  as  its  head 
and  to  the  world  as  adorned  with  all  the  gifts  and  graces. 
To  many  this  consideration  is  a  plausible  motive  for 
union.  But  we  confess  that  we  cannot  endorse  it  so  un- 
reservedly as  it  is  usually  done,  simply  because  of  the 
kind  of  union  usually  aimed  at.  We  are  convinced  that 
in  an  artificial  union,  that  is  in  a  union  which  does  not 
grow  out  of  an  inner  agreement  in  matters  of  faith,  the 
Lutheran  Church  would  lose  her  historical  charism  of 
guarding  the  truth.  And  as  a  natural  consequence  she 
would  strip  herself  of  other  characteristics  that  have 
stood  as  bulwarks  of  sound  religion  through  the  ages 
and  ought  never  to  be  sacrificed.  An  artificial  organic 
union  with  the  expectation  of  making  the  gifts  and 
graces  of  the  various  churches  a  common  possession  of  a 
merger  body  would  defeat  the  end  in  view.  Such  gifts 
have  their  roots  in  the  historical  organizations  that  have 
produced  them.  These  roots  would  suffer  especially  in 
a  union  which  ignores  the  history  of  the  churches  in 
question,  and  the  graces  would  be  lost  instead  of  pre- 
served!    Those  who  urge  union  on  this  ground  mean 


210 


well,  but  they  fail  to  see  that  here  questions  are  involved, 
that  have  not  been  thought  out  to  the  end. 

Next  we  shall  discuss  a  number  of  motives  of  a  more 
or  less  questionable  character. 

(4)  The  economic  motive  is  much  advanced.  We 
shall  state  both  the  suggestion  and  its  criticism  in  the 
following  words  of  President  Dr.  Haas  of  Muhlenberg 
College:  "In  this  age  of  material  considerations  and  of 
big  financial  undertakings  men  are  prone  to  judge  not 
only  commercial  concerns  but  all  interests  of  life  from 
the  point  of  view  of  economic  advantage  or  disadvantage. 
It  seems  a  great  waste  of  money  and  effort  to  perpetuate 
a  number  of  minor  organizations  when  a  large  major  or- 
ganization could  be  formed  with  a  great  budget  and  a 
strong  appeal  because  it  saves  so  much  in  overlapping  op- 
erations. It  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  economic  motive 
which  looks  to  a  great  central  religious  trust  in  moving 
many  men  to  place  a  minor  emphasis  upon  conscientious 
convictions  which  churches  have  long  held  sacred.  The 
dream  of  a  great  organization,  if  it  be  effected  without 
the  clearest  agreement  in  the  truth,  is  a  violation 
of  the  obligation  which  God  has  put  upon  the  Church  to 
keep  His  truth  pure,  undefiled  and  spiritually  effective. 
A  union  formed  through  mere  pressure  of  lay  interests 
from  a  fundamentally  economic  emphasis  is  a  destruction 
of  the  spiritual  strength  of  the  Church.^- 

(5)  Many  are  clammoring  for  the  union  of  Protest- 
antism because  of  the  impression  which  a  large  organiza- 
tion would  make  upon  the  world.  Prof.  Th.  Graebner, 
recently,  characterized  this  as  "kephalomania."  If  it  is 
admitted  that  agreement  in  the  truth  of  God's  Word  is 
the  supreme  condition  of  church  union  then  this  motive 
needs  no  special  discussion,  except  to  refer  to  Zechariah 
4 :6  where  we  read :  "Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by 
my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  We  also  appreciate 
the  strength  that  comes  from  union,  but  it  must  not  be 
bought  at  the  price  of  infidelity  to  a  sacred  trust. 

12    Lutheran  Church  Review,  Jan'y  1919,  p.  2. 


211 

(6)  Speaking  of  the  motives  for  Church  union  there 
is  one  to  which  we  have  referred  many  times  in  previous 
chapters  of  our  general  discussion.  State  governments, 
considering  the  Church  a  convenient  instrument  for 
nationalization  and  the  accomplishment  of  political  pur- 
poses, have  followed  the  policy  of  forcing  the  Lutherans 
into  a  union  with  the  Reformed.  Here  the  Hohenzol- 
lerns,  especially  Elector  Sigismund  of  Brandenburg, 
Elector  Frederick  William  I  (the  "Great  Elector")  and 
later  King  Frederick  William  III  of  Prussia,  have  sinned 
much  against  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  we  have  shown. 
On  the  part  of  church  members  there  must  be  patriotism 
and  loyalty  to  the  government,  but  the  Church  as  such 
should  never  be  manipulated  for  political  purposes.  This 
is  a  needed  exhortation  also  for  us  in  America.  We  have 
been  told  that  a  position  upon  the  principles  of  historic 
Lutheranism  is  "out  of  harmony  with  true  American- 
ism." Our  reply  is  that  according  to  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  religion  as  well  as  race 
presents  no  hindrance  to  good  American  citizenship.  A 
consistent  Lutheran  can  be  just  as  good  an  American  as 
a  convinced  Romanist,  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  or  Bap- 
tist. 

(7)  "From  theology  we  ought  to  return  to  pure  reli- 
gion"— ^this  sentiment  is  to  very  many  a  motive  for 
union.  We  have  had  occasion  to  touch  upon  this  subject 
so  much  that  we  can  dispbse  of  most  of  what  here  should 
be  said  by  referring  to  previous  chapters.  See  our  treat- 
ment of  the  thoughts  of  Calixtus  on  this  question  in  the 
Lutheran  Quarterly,  July  1919,  pp.  372ff.,  cf.  pp.  379  ff; 
in  our  special  print  pp.  89,  cf.  96.  On  his  suggestion  to 
establish  the  union  on  the  basis  of  the  Apostles  Creed, 
see  Luth.  Quarterly  pp.  370  ff.  (our  special  print  87  ff.) 
Compare  also  our  review  of  the  Consensus  Repetitus  by 
Abr.  Calovius  in  the  same  issue  of  the  Quarterly,  pp. 
388  ff.  (reprint  105  ff.).  We  further  refer  to  the 
thoughts  of  the  "union  theologians"  of  the  middle  of  the 
last  century,  especially  J.  Mueller  and  C.  L  Nitzsch 
(Quarterly  1919,  p.  546;  special  print  p.  129)  and  to  the 
position  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  as  discussed 


in  chapter  VI,  sec.  Ill,  1,  note  2.  In  abstracto,  and  with 
proper  care  of  expression  also  in  concreto,  it  is  legiti- 
mate to  distinguish  between  pure  religion  and  theology. 
Yet  in  the  manner  in  which  this  distinction  is  used  by 
many  advocates  of  church  union  there  is  something  mis- 
leading. They  overlook  that  after  all  theology  is  indis- 
pensible  to  indicate,  to  express,  and  to  communicate  re- 
ligion to  the  minds  of  men,  and  that  it  depends  upon  the 
contents  of  this  theology  whether  the  religion  which  is 
communicated  is  pure  or  adulterated,  true  or  false. 
Scriptural  or  un-Scriptural. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  practical  identity  of  the 
sentiment  here  under  discussion  in  other  suggestions 
which  operate  as  motives  for  union.  We  are  admonished : 
"From  Luther  and  Calvin  we  must  come  back  to 
Christ."  It  is  about  the  same  as  when  we  hear:  "From 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Confessions  we  appeal 
to  the  Scriptures."^ '^  The  "Disciples"  (Christian 
Church)  admonish  the  denominations  to  "return  to  the 
beliefs  and  practices  of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment times.^*  To  find  out  what  this  is  we  have  to  turn  to 
the  New  Testament  itself.  But  what  is  the  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament?  Is  it  not  on  the  New  Testament  teaching 
that  the  churches  disagree  ?  From  the  New  Testament 
times  up  to  our  day  the  Church  has  studied  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  discover  their  message  for  the  individual  unto 
his  salvation  and  for  the  Church  as  entrusted  with  the 
spiritual  feeding  of  souls.  This  has  naturally  yielded  to 
the  Church  of  to-day  a  doctrinal  experience.  This  experi- 
ence which  we  can  trace  through  the  history  of  dogma 
has  not  been  the  same  in  all  churches,  because  in  some 
cases  misleading  principles  were  permitted  to  furnish 
viewpoints  which  made  it  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the 
whole  body  of  Scripture  truth.  The  Lutheran  Church 
claims  neither  infallibility  nor  perfection.  Her  teaching 
is  true  only  in  so  far  (quatenus)  as  her  Creed  actually 
agrees  with  the  Scriptures.    But  the  individual  Luther- 

13  Cf.  chapter  VI,  sec.  Ill,  2. 

14  P.  Ainslie,  "Towards  Christian  Unity,"  p.  11. 


211 


an,  especially  as  a  teacher  in  his  church,  is  a  Lutheran, 
because  (quia)  he  believes  that  his  Confession  is  Scrip- 
tural/'^ Members  of  the  churches  differing  from  the 
Lutheran  Church  ought  to  take  the  same  position.  We 
know  that  many  do — such  men,  for  instance,  as  the  late 
Dr.  B,  Warfield  of  Princeton.  But  we  know  also  that 
there  is  a  strong  sentiment  of  indifferentism  in  the  Re- 
formed churches :  Creeds  are  discredited,  instead  of  con- 
fessional conviction  there  is  only  religious  opinion,  sub- 
ject to  change  with  the  theological  schools  of  the  age. 
We  are  speaking  here  from  the  standpoint  of  the  men 
of  religious  conviction,  who  are  convinced  that  the  teach- 
ing of  their  Confession  is  Scriptural.  Such  men  feel 
that  we  need  to  have  confidence  in  the  doctrinal  experi- 
ence of  the  Church  as  it  has  embodied  itself  in  the  Con- 
fessions of  history.  And  any  new  truth  must  be  built  on 
the  old  basis.  Now  the  advocates  of  union  tell  us: 
"From  theology  you  must  go  back  to  religion,"  "from  the 
Confessions  back  to  the  Scriptures,"  "from  Luther  and 
Calvin  back  to  Christ."  What  do  these  suggestions 
mean  ?  Considering  their  source,  they  can  mean  only 
that  we  must  disown  the  doctrinal  experience  of  the 
Church  and  return  to  the  beginnings  of  its  history  with  a 
nescimus.  The  full-grown  man,  equipped  with  the  doc- 
trinal experience  of  a  rich  history  is  to  return  to  the 
state  of  development  of  the  child  whose  mind  on  definite 
beliefs  is  yet  a  blank.  And  what  then  ?  Is  the  develop- 
ment to  be  started  over  again?  No,  we  are  simply  to 
establish  ourselves  upon  the  "Scriptures"  (refusing  to 
interpret  them  confessionally),  upon  "Christ,"  upon 
"pure  religion,"  and  then  the  dream  of  an  all-inclusive 
union  will  be  a  glorious  reality!  But  can  a  church,  by 
stepping  into  organic  union  with  other  churches,  on  the 
basis  of  Confessional  agnosticism,  forget  what  it  does 
know?  The  Church  certainly  did  learn  something  from 
the  writings  of  the  Reformers.  Some  of  their  books  are 
immortal.    Supposing  that  in  the  spirit  of  indifferentism 

15     Cf.  chapter  VI,  sec.  Ill,  3,  note  i. 


214 

we  enter  into  such  an  organic  union,  can  we  forget  the 
historical  Creeds?  Will  the  conflicting  principles  of  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Creeds  and  the  great  theolo- 
gies that  have  been  built  upon  them  cease  to  function  and 
continue  to  be  dead  ? 

We  do  not  know  what  may  be  possible  among  the  Re- 
formed churches  Their  genius  is  different  from  that  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.  Their  attitude  to  Creeds  is  not  the 
same.  The  Lutherans  are  established  upon  "Symbols" 
which  are  the  same  the  world  over;  the  Reformed  have 
"Confessions"  which  are  different  in  the  different 
countries.  And  it  may  also  be  said  that  the  differences 
between  the  Reformed  churches  are  of  a  less  essential 
nature  than  those  existing  between  them  and  the  Luther- 
ans So  the  Reformed  churches  may  succeed  in  a  union 
on  the  basis  of  indifferentism  to  the  doctrines  that  have 
divided  them.  But  from  what  we  know  of  the  history  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  and  of  the  functioning  of  Luther- 
anism  in  a  free  country  we  cannot  believe  that  the  time 
will  ever  come  when  the  Lutheran  Church  will  step  into 
a  church  union  that  is  not  established  upon  a  careful 
agreement  in  matters  of  faith.  The  Lutheran  Church  of 
the  future,  we  believe,  cannot  and  will  not  refuse  to  par- 
ticipate in  conferences  for  union,  provided  there  is  the 
assurance  that  the  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine  shall 
have  fundamental  consideration.  But  in  such  doctrinal 
conferences  it  must  not  be  expected  that  the  differences 
can  be  settled  by  mutual  concessions.  Recently  we  saw 
Dr.  Burrell  quoted  to  have  said:  "On  truth  you  cannot 
split  the  difference." 

IIL      The    Persistency    of    the    Difference    between 
Lutheranism  and  Calvinism. 

We  are  speaking  of  a  union  in  which  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  expected  to  participate.  As  soon  as  the  Lu- 
theran Church  is  to  be  included  there  are  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  a  union,  which  are  absent  when  the  Reformed 
churches  alone  are  considered.  There  was  no  malice  in 
the  words  of  Luther  when  he  said  to  Zwingli :  "Ye  have 


215 

another  spirit  than  we" ;  he  simply  stated  an  actual  situ- 
ation. The  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Church  differed 
from  the  beginning  on  the  relation  of  the  divine  to  the 
human  in  the  Word,  in  Baptism  and  Lord's  Supper,  in 
the  person  of  Christ,  in  the  conception  of  the  Church  and 
in  much  pertaining  to  the  way  of  salvation.  Let  us  look 
at  the  tenacity  of  this  difference  from  two  standpoints: 
first,  by  a  brief  review  of  the  union  movements ;  and,  sec- 
ond, by  calling  to  our  attention  the  sensitiveness  of 
Lutheranism  when  exposed  to  modifying  influences  cal- 
culated to  lead  to  a  union  with  the  Reformed  church 
family. 

1.  Union  movements  that  have  failed.  We  shall  con- 
tent ourselves  with  a  very  brief  review  and  refer  to  the 
chapters  which  contain  the  more  extended  discussion. 

(a)  Martin  Bucer,  the  great  union  theologian  of  the 
Reformation  age,  succeeded  in  drawing  Luther  into  a 
union  movement.  The  "Wittenberg  Concord,"  in  which 
the  two  sides  had  agreed,  was  mildly  Lutheran  and  was 
for  that  reason  not  accepted  by  the  Swiss.  Calvin  re- 
moulded the  followers  of  Zwingli.  Luther  published  his 
Last  Confession  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  Witten- 
berg Concord  ceased  to  function.^*' 

(b)  Melanchthon  who  felt  himself  drawn  to  Calvin 
was  desirous  of  a  union  between  the  followers  of  Luther 
and  those  of  Zwingli.  To  this  purpose  he  changed  two 
significant  expressions  in  Art.  X  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion— in  the  edition  of  1540  (Variata), — which  was  to 
make  it  easier  for  the  Zwinglians  to  identify  themselves 
with  the  Lutherans.  But  after  the  death  of  Luther  the 
Variata  was  discredited.  And  the  Lutheran  Church,  in 
adopting  the  Book  of  Concord,  established  herself  upon 
the  first  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  which,  to- 
gether with  the  Formula  of  Concord,  was  to  preserve  an 
uncompromising  position  upon  the  teaching  of  Luther  as 
opposed  to  the  modifications  proposed  by  Melanchthon. 

(c)  After  the  final  split  of  Protestantism  into  a  Luth- 

i6    See  our  chapter  I,  especially  the  closing  observations. 


216 


eran  and  a  Reformed  Church  effort  after  effort  was 
made  to  heal  this  schism.  In  chapters  III  and  IV  we 
have  studied  the  following  union  movements:  (1)  the 
Consensus  of  Sendomir  (1580)  ;  (2)  the  Montbeliard 
Colloquy  (1586)  ;  (3)  the  Palatinate  Irenicum  (1606)  ; 
(4)  the  advance  of  Paraeus  (1614)  ;  (5)  the  Colloquy  at 
Leipzig  (1632)  ;  (6)  the  convention  at  Thorn  (1645)  ; 
(7)  the  Colloquy  at  Cassel  (1661)  ;  (8)  the  Colloquy  at 
Berlin  (1662)  ;  (9)  the  life  work  of  John  Dury;  (10)  the 
principles  of  George  Calixtus.  All  these  movements 
failed.  The  best  contribution  to  a  real  understanding 
was  made  by  the  Leipzig  Colloquy  because  here  the  doc- 
trinal differences  were  discussed  with  thoroughness  and 
frankness.  For  a  characterization  of  these  movements 
as  a  whole  we  must  refer  to  the  introduction  of  chapter 
III. 

(d)  The  union  movements  of  the  nineteenth  century  in 
Germany  brought  only  a  partial  success  (cf .  chapter  V) . 
The  aim  of  the  Prussian  king  was  "a  renewed  Evangeli- 
cal Christian  Church" ;  but  the  outcome  was  a  mere  con- 
federation of  two  churches  which  both  continued  to  main- 
tain their  identity.  But  even  this  had  to  be  forced  by  the 
state  authorities.  Such  a  union  was  possible  in  Germany 
because  in  most  of  the  dominions  one  of  the  churches 
was  overwhelmingly  in  the  majority.  So  to  that  church 
could  be  given  almost  exclusive  recognition.  Such  an 
arrangement  would  not  in  any  way  be  transferable  to 
American  conditions.  Here  a  mere  confederation,  in  an 
organic  union,  is  bound  to  issue  into  an  ahsorjMve 
church  union  in  which  the  Lutheran  Church  would  be 
sure  to  lose  her  identity  and  with  that  her  heritage  and 
her  mission.  If  the  Prussian  Church  Union  had  suc- 
ceeded in  finding  the  consensus  of  the  two  churches  then 
there  would  have  been  the  positive  contribution  to  a  basis 
for  union,  upon  which  the  Protestant  churches  of 
America,  the  Lutherans  incuded,  might  find  themselves 
together.  But  the  consensus  theory  of  the  old  "union 
theologians"  (Mueller,  Nitzsch,  Dorner,  Rothe,  Ullmann) 


\ 


217 

was  a  phantom  which  they  kept  chasing  until  in  1846  it 
vanished  definitely  out  of  sight  (cf.  p.  130). 

(e)  The  German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America 
which  we  have  studied  in  chapter  VI,  represents  an  at- 
tempt to  unite  Lutherans  and  German  Reformed  in  one 
body.  The  Lutherans  in  this  body  are  by  far  in  the 
majority.  Under  our  American  conditions  the  adherents 
of  both  Confessions  are  expected  to  live  in  one  congrega- 
tion, instead  of  separately  under  a  common  general  gov- 
ernment. So  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  had  to  find 
a  confessional  platform  that  would  be  agreeable  to  both 
sides.  Profiting  from  the  experiences  of  Germany,  the 
search  for  a  consensus  of  doctrine  between  Lutherans 
and  Reformed  was  abandoned.  In  its  place  a  confessional 
basis  was  arrived  at,  which  may  be  said  to  present  a 
kind  of  a  selection  ("Chrestomathie")  of  what  seemed 
best  adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  constituent  parts  of 
the  Synod.  From  all  that  we  know  of  Lutheranism  when 
it  functions  in  freedom  from  the  state,  the  Lutherans  of 
America  will  never  be  ready  to  join  in  such  a  plan  of 
union.  Therefore,  when  the  consideration  is  a  union  of 
American  Protestantism,  in  which  the  Lutheran  Church 
is  to  participate,  we  have  to  record  also  the  attempt  of 
the  German  Evangelical  Synod  among  the  failures.  We 
must  ask  to  read  again  what  we  wrote  in  the  closing  sec- 
tion (5)  of  chapter  VI. 

2.  Can  Lutheranism  be  expected  to  change?  As  has 
been  said  already,  there  are  obstacles  in  the  way  of  union 
when  the  Lutheran  Church  is  considered  as  a  participant, 
which  are  absent  when  a  union  of  the  rest  of  the  churches 
of  Protestantism  is  under  consideration.  The  latter  belong 
to  one  family  while  the  Lutheran  Church  is  in  a  differ- 
ent class.  It  is  this  observation  that  suggests  our  ques- 
tion which  we  shall  now  express  in  this  form:  Can  we 
look  for  a  change  in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America, 
especially  with  regard  to  her  appreciation  of  the  doc- 
trinal element,  that  will  lead  to  a  union  such  as  is  de- 
manded by  most  of  the  advocates  of  organic  union  in  our 
day  ?     In  attempting  to  answer  this  question  we  can 


218 

speak  with  profit  only  by  again  consulting  history.  Our 
references  must  be  first  to  Germany  and  then  to  America, 
(a)  We  are  told  that  in  the  land  of  Luther  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  churches 
have  dropped  into  the  background  and  are  disappearing 
more  and  more  in  this  age  of  reconstruction.  But  there 
are  a  number  of  things,  that  must  be  taken  into  account, 
which  will  guard  us  against  drawing  hasty  conclusions. 
(1)  Liberalism  with  its  large  following  in  Germany  (in 
and  outside  of  the  Union)  naturally  has  no  appreciation 
of  confessional  differences  such  as  existed  oetween  the 
Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century.  One  like  Albr. 
Ritschl,  late  professor  at  Goettingen,  (the  university  of  a 
Lutheran  province),  who,  in  the  succession  of  Schleier- 
macher,  made  man's  subjective  experience  the  criterion 
of  what  is  to  be  accepted  as  Scripture  truth  naturally 
could  see  no  objection  to  a  union  between  Lutherans  and 
Reformed.  And  there  are  no  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
union  for  the  men  of  the  school  of  comparative  religion 
which  at  present  holds  the  field  of  liberalistic  theology  in 
Germany.  As  mere  products  of  evolution  certainly  one 
church  is  as  good  as  the  other.  The  Scriptures  have  no 
proving  value.  (2)  Then  the  training  of  ministers  in  the 
university,  instead  of  in  real  church  schools,  is  another 
factor  to  explain  much  of  the  confessional  indifferentism 
in  Germany.  All  confessional  and  theological  Rich-, 
tungen  have  equal  right,  and  in  most  branches  of  theolo- 
gy the  confessional  character  of  teaching  is  en,tirely 
absent.  There  is  no  applicability  of  German  conditions 
to  the  denominational  situation  in  America.  (3)  And 
yet,  confessional  Lutheranism  is  far  from  being  dead  in 
Germany.  Even  under  the  adverse  state  church  condi- 
tions it  has  shown  a  wonderful  vitality.  After  its  break- 
down in  the  age  of  rationalism,  the  second  third  of  the 
last  century  brought  a  revival  of  Lutheran  theology 
which  received  its  impulses  from  the  struggle  against 
both  rationalism  and  the  Union.  We  refer  to  names 
such  as  Sartorius,  Rudelbach,  Guericke,  Harless, 
Thomasius,    Philippi,    Th.    Harnack,    Caspari,    Kurtz, 


219 

Kliefoth,  Vilmar,  von  Zezschwitz,  Oehler,  Hofmann,  De- 
litzsch,  Kahnis,  Keil,  Luthardt,  Zoeckler.  And  in  the 
Modern  Positive  School  of  to-day,  which  has  followed  the 
Erlangen  School,  there  is  a  very  large  representation  of 
Lutheranism.  Including  the  names  of  some  that  have 
passed  away  in  recent  years  and  aiming  neither  at  com- 
pleteness nor  at  systematic  grouping,  we  mention  writ- 
ers such  as  the  following:''  Ihmels,  Zahn,  Kaftan,  Wal- 
ther,  Hilbert,  Noesgen,  Roemer,  von  Bezzel,  Kloster- 
mann,  Wohlenberg,  Dunkmann,  Bachmann,  Althaus, 
Boehmer,  Preuss,  Leipolt,  Schaeder,  Uhlhorn,  Zaenker, 
Laible,  Bestmann,  Kropatscheck,  Stange,  Kunze, 
Schultze;  and  churchmen  such  as  Bard,  Haack,  Veit, 
Bracker,  Paul,  Oepke,  Haccius,  Glage,  Matthes,  Wetzel 
and  so  many  more  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  men- 
tion them.  These  names  certainly  represent  an  influ- 
ence !  But  we  want  to  emphasize  that  back  of  such  out- 
standing leaders  there  are  in  the  congregations  of  Ger- 
many very  many  ministers  of  the  Gospel  who  are  all 
established  upon  the  principles  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  after  the  experiences  of  the  last  century  are  dis- 
trustful of  a  confessional  union.  (4)  We  admit  that  in 
the  church  reconstruction  of  Germany,  at  this  present 
time,  there  is  much  inconsistency  ("Gleichberechtigung 
der  Richtungen").  But  this  has  chief  reference  to  liber- 
alism. The  church  in  Germany  faces  the  double  problem 
of  the  extreme  poverty  of  the  country  and  the  general 
hostility  of  Socialism  to  the  Church.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  leaders  of  the  Church  seem  to  feel  that 
separate  organization  along  the  lines  of  distinguishing 
principles,  at  the  present  time,  would  make  all  church 
organization  impossible. 

Our  conclusion  then,  is  that,  considering  the  whole 
situation,  the  lessons  from  Germany  do  not  point  to  the 
coming  of  a  fundamental  modification  of  historic  Luther- 

17  In  giving  these  names  we  have  not  overlooked  that  many 
men  of  this  school,  as  a  result  of  the  German  university  condi- 
tions, go  too  far  in  their  emphasis  upon  the  human  factor  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Yet  the  Bible  is  to  them  normative  for  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  and  they  are  opposed  to  the  union  principle. 


220 


anism  by  erasing  the  confessional  difference  between 
Lutherans  and  Reformed  in  the  practical  church  life. 
The  fact  is  that  the  union  features  of  Germany  have  no 
applicability  to  conditions  in  America.  In  Germany  even 
the  Union  in  so  very  many  of  its  evangelical  representa- 
tives is  so  overwhelmingly  Lutheran  that  the  union  fea- 
tures there  do  not  mean  what  they  would  mean  here. 
Co-operation  and  confederation  in  Germany  can  be  prac- 
ticed without  the  effects  they  would  have  in  America. 

(b)  Can  we  look  for  a  change  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America  confessionally?  The  rapidly  proceeding  de- 
velopment into  the  English  and  the  process  of  American- 
ization are  bound  to  influence  the  Church.  Will  these 
things  induce  the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country  to 
lessen  her  emphasis  upon  doctrinal  truth  and  to  approach 
the  churches  of  the  Reformed  group?  Young  as  we  are 
in  experiences  as  a  church  on  this  continent  we  have  al- 
ready had  our  own  history  on  this  subject.  During  a 
number  of  decades  in  the  history  of  the  old  General 
Synod  the  attempt  was  made  to  establish  for  the  English 
Lutheran  Church  of  America  a  ''Lutheranism  modified 
by  the  Puritan  element,"  an  "American  Lutheranism," 
as  it  was  called.'**  The  appeal  was  to  Melanchthon  and  to 
the  principles  of  the  Variata  edition  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  to  the  Pietistic  School  in  Germany.  The 
movement  was  characterized  by  participation  in  the  re- 
vivals of  the  denominations  and  much  practice  of  pulpit 
and  altar  fellowship  with  the  other  churches.  It  even 
led  to  the  drafting  of  a  confessional  document,  the  "De- 
finite Synodical  Platform," — a  new  Variata  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession, — which  was  proposed  as  a  basis  for  an 
"American  Lutheranism."  The  distinguishing  features 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  such  as  Baptismal  regeneration, 
the  Real  Presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  removed. 
The  most  influential  men  of  the  General  Synod  stood 
back  of  the  movement:  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  President  of 
the  Gettysburg  Seminary    (prominent  in  the  organiza- 

iS     Cf.   Neve,    Brief   History    of    the    Luth.   Church    in    America, 
second  edition,  1916,  pp.  103-176. 


221 

tion  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  London),  Dr.  S. 
Sprecher,  President  of  Wittenberg  College,  and  Dr.  B. 
Kurtz,  for  over  thirty  years  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Ob- 
server. Synods  under  names  such  as  "Frankean  Synod,'' 
"Melanchthon  Synod"  were  called  into  existence.  The 
movement  was  remarkable  for  the  energy  with  which  it 
set  itself  to  work  to  accomplish  its  purpose.  The  whole 
literature  on  the  history  of  the  Reformation  was 
searched  for  material  in  favor  of  Melanchthonianism  and 
against  the  principles  of  historic  Lutheranism  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  "unaltered"  Augsburg  Confession  and  in 
the  Formula  of  Concord.'^  We  refer  to  the  many  articles 
on  this  conflict  in  the  "Lutheran  Observer,"  the  "Lu- 
theran World,"  the  "Lutheran  Evangelist"  and  in  the 
"Lutheran-  Quarterly."^*'  But  all  these  efforts  could  not 
keep  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  (the  part  of  it 
that  had  developed  into  the  English)  from  asserting  her 
own  genius.  The  time  came  after  much  struggle  when 
the  General  Synod  established  itself  upon  the  "un- 
altered" Augsburg  Confession  and  recognized  "the  Apol- 
ogy, the  Smalcald  Articles,  the  Small  Catechism  of  I^u- 
ther,  the  Large  Catechism  of  Luther  and  the  Formula  of 
Concord  as  expositions  of  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  great 
historical  and  interpretative  value."-^  After  this  position 
had  been  taken  by  the  old  General  Synod  the  way  was 
open  for  a  union  of  all  the  English  speaking  bodies  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  this  country. 

Will  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  change?  Can 
we  expect  in  her  future  development  an  approach  to  the 
positions  of  the  Reformed  church  family?     Certainly, 

19  Cf.  Neve,  Introduction  to  Lutheran  Symbolics,  p.  98  f . :  "Why- 
does  the  Lutheran  Church  of  to-day  insist  upon  a  subscription  to 
the  unahered  Augsburg  Confession?"  A  more  extensive  discus- 
sion or  tills  subject  is  given  in  the  same  author's  publication:  "Are 
we  justified  in  distinguishing  between  an  altered  and  an  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession?"  (Lutheran  Literary  Board,  Burlington, 
Iowa). 

20  The  "Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church"  by 
Prof.  Dr.  J  .W.  Richard,  championed  the  Melanchthonian  and  "The 
Confessional  Principle"  by  Drs.  Schmauk  and  Benze  the  Lutheran 
side  of  the  question. 

21  See  Neve,  History,  as  cited,  pp.  176-84. 


222 

the  history  of  Lutheranism  in  America  gives  no  such  en- 
couragement. The  development  which  we  have  de- 
scribed was  the  history  of  the  English  Lutherans  in  this 
country.  And  they  arrived  at  their  present  position 
after  a  long  period  of  visiting  with  the  Puritans  and  the 
Methodists.  Dr.  S.  Sprecher,  one  of  the  chief  promoters 
sof  the  "American  Lutheranism,"  wrote  in  old  age 
<1890)  :  "No  church  can  give  up  its  creed.  I  thought  at 
one  time  that  a  Lutheranism  modified  by  the  Puritan  ele- 
ment would  be  desirable,  but  I  have  given  up  its  desir- 
ableness, and  I  am  convinced  of  its  hopelessness. "-- 
To-day  the  English  Lutherans  in  America  in  their  recog- 
nized church  literature,  are  thoroughly  established  upon 
the  historic  positions  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Special 
evidence  of  this  can  be  seen  in  their  order  of  service,  in 
their  hymnbook,  in  their  forms  for  ministerial  acts,  in 
their  Catechism.  At  present  they  are  even  engaged  in 
the  creation  of  an  independent  system  for  Sunday 
School  teaching,  arranged  after  the  church  year  as  ob- 
served in  the  Lutheran  Church. 

When  the  conflict  over  the  "American  Lutheranism" 
was  at  its  height  Dr.  E.  J.  Wolf,  professor  in  the  Gettys- 
burg Seminary,  published  in  the  "Lutheran  Evangelist" 
(1910),  then  edited  by  Dr.  S.  A.  Ort,  a  series  of  articles 
on  "Melanchthonian  Lutheranism,"  which  were  so  per- 
tinent to  our  discussion  that  we  cannot  resist  the  tempt- 
ation to  quote  at  least  a  few  paragraphs : 

"The  whole  history  of  Melanchthonian  Lutheranism 
shows  it  to  be  lacking  in  the  element  of  permanency.  It 
has  no  staying  quality  With  all  the  advantages  of  cir- 
cumstances and  leadership,  with  the  popularity  which  is 
generally  claimed  for  liberal  views  over  against  rigid 
orthodoxy,  it  has  proved  incapable  of  holding  its  own, 
incapable  of  self -propagation,  which  is  the  first  essential 
of  all  true  life.  It  comes  forth  with  much  promise,  it 
contains  some  very  specious  features,  it  seems  to  com- 
mend itself  especially  to  Americans,  but  it  is  ephemeral. 

22  Quoted  by  Dr.  E.  J.  Wolf  in  the  "Lutheran  Evangelist,"  April 
10,  1891. 


223 

The  spirit,  the  tendency,  the  school  has  no  future,  it  has 
never  succeeded  in  embodying  itself  in  a  permanent 
form.  It  has  never  become  a  distinct  branch  of  the 
Church.  It  either  rebounds  to  pure,  historic  Lutheran- 
ism,  or  it  bounds  off  to  Presbyterianism,  Methodism  or 
some  other  ecclesiastical  species.  It  soon  develops  to  a 
point  where  it  is  found  necessary  to  be  one  thing  or  the 
other,  where  one  must  be  either  for  or  against  the  intact 
Lutheran  system,  where  one  must  either  come  out  as  a 
Lutheran  or  decide  to  be  something  else.^^  A  middle 
ground  between  historic  Lutheranism  and  the  position  of 
the  other  churches,  a  firm  rock  between  two  opposing 
Protestant  systems,  in  which  one  can  shout  the  "Hier 
stehe  ich,"  has  never  been  reached. 

"Such  are  the  facts.  Their  explanation  is  as  easy  as 
the  collection  of  the  facts.  The  Lutheran  faith  is  a  body 
of  truth  so  Scriptural,  so  logical,  so  rounded,  so  organic 
and  symmetrical  in  its  development,  that  the  rejection  of 
any  part  of  it  mars  and  mutilates  the  whole,  and  renders 
it  utterly  unsatisfactory.  Possibly  not  every  stone  in  a 
gothic  cathedral  is  essential  to  it,  but  if  you  remove  a 
block  here,  a  buttress  there,  and  a  pillar  yonder,  if  you 
substitute  in  places  brick,  stucco  or  wood  for  the  original 
marble,  the  glory  of  the  building  is  gone,  its  strength  is 
undermined,  its  stability  endangered. 

\^     "Lutheranism  is  a  system.     So  is  Calvinism 

Each  has  a  vitality  that  has  withstood  the  storm  of  the 
ages.  The  two  have  much  in  common,  and  at  many 
points  they  coincide,  but  when  you  attempt  to  alter  either 
system  or  both  so  as  to  combine  the  two,  you  destroy 
both,  without  being  able  to  form  a  new  structure  from 
the  ruins.    The  result  is  disorganization.    Building  theo- 

2.2,  While  this  maj'  have  been  the  experience  of  history  in  gen- 
eral yet  we  think  there  have  been  seeming  exceptions  :  The  Prus- 
sian Church  Union,  the  Moravian  Church,  the  German  Evangeli- 
cal Synod  in  America.  It  may  be  replied,  however,  that  in  Prus- 
sia the  Union  failed  to  become  a  real  absorptive  Union;  that  the 
Moravians  and  the  men  of  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  were 
the  most  insisting  upon  the  organic  union  proposed  in  the  move- 
ment discussed  in  sec.  I  of  this  chapter,  in  which  they  would  soon 
have  lost  their  identity.  And  compare  our  observation  in  chapter 
VI,  sec.  Ill,  s,  close. 


224 

logical  systems  is  not  a  matter  of  arbitrary  mechanical 
exploit.  Truth,  like  every  other  life-force,  is  organic  and 
organizing,  and  when  once  the  normal  basis  is  laid  lown, 
the  structure  grows  by  virtue  of  inherent  laws.  That 
Melanchthonianism  is  irreconcileable  with  Lutheranism 
was  decisively  shown  in  the  preparation  of  the  Form  of 
Concord.  Chemnitz  and  Selnecker  were  the  ablest  re- 
presentatives that  school  ever  had,  but  before  the  docu- 
ment was  completed,  which  settled  the  distracting  con- 
troversies of  the  Church,  every  trace  of  the  Melanch- 
thonian  tendency  disappeared.  It  is  as  impractible  in 
theology  as  it  is  in  nature  to  cross  the  species.  The  hybrid 
does  not  propogate  itself.  The  mongrel  has  no 
successors."-* 

The  tenacity  of  the  confessional  difference  between  the 
churches  of  Luther  and  Calvin  certainly  gives  food  for 
thought.  The  "other  spirit"  of  which  Luther  spoke  at 
Marburg  is  not  something  imaginary,  but  is  a  reality. 
At  the  foundation  of  it  there  is  a  different  conception  of 
Scripture  truth.  From  this  as  the  centre,  the  difference 
has  worked  itself  out  into  the  cultus,  the  piety  and  the 
polity  of  the  two  churches.-^  Think  of  the  efforts  of 
almost  four  centuries  that  have  been  spent  in  overcoming 
this  difference!  It  is  the  barrier  of  Union  to-day  as  it 
was  between  Luther  and  Zwingli,  between  Calvin  and 
the  Lutherans  of  his  day. 

*  *  * 

It  is  no  wonder  that  many  have  given  up  hope  for  a  doc- 
trinal Union.  Large  is  the  number  of  those  that  call  for 
a  Union  in  spite  of  the  existing  difference.  They  want 
a  confederation  of  churches.  They  say :  Let  each  church 
keep  its  doctrinal  and  practical  peculiarities,  but  let 
them  federate  like  the  states  of  our  Union  in  one  com- 
mon government.    This,  then,  would  be  an  organic  form 

24  Lutheran  Evangelist,  April  10,  1891. 

25  All  Protestant  churches  outside  of  the  Lutheran,  irrespec- 
tive of  their  attitude  to  predestination,  belong  to  the  Calvinistic 
camp  in  so  far  as  they  all  reject  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
means  of  grace.  It  is  in  this  field  fundamentally  where  they  can- 
not agree  with  Lutheranism. 


225 

of  church  federation.  It  takes  us  back  to  the  Plan  of 
Organic  Union  of  Christian  Churches,  which  was  started 
by  the  Presbyterians  and  to  which  we  referred. 
The  suggestion  of  organic  union  in  spite  of  doctrinal 
differences  has,  as  a  rule,  the  strong  support  of  liber- 
alism. The  liberalists  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  were 
the  special  promoters  of  this  movement  for  organic 
union  of  the  churches.  But  soon  there  was  decided  pro- 
test in  that  body.  Most  of  the  presbyteries  voted 
against  the  "Plan",  and  so  it  failed  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  Baptists  also  voted  it  down.  The  Methodists 
have  their  interest  in  the  "family  union."  The  move- 
ment is  bound  to  end  in  failure. 

At  a  recent  convention  of  this  movement  for  organic 
union  in  Philadelphia  (Febr.  1920),  Dr.  Geo.  W. 
Richards,  Professor  in  the  Refonned  Seminary  in  Lan- 
caster, Pa.,  an  ardent  advocate  of  the  "Plan,"  made  a 
very  interesting  statement.    He  said : 

"The  genius  of  a  church  is  manifested  through  its  doc- 
trine, cultus,  polity  and  piety.  Points  of  agreement  and 
difference  between  the  churches  would  relate  to  these 
four  aspects  of  organization  and  life.  The  plan  of  union 
leaves  intact  the  doctrine,  the  cultus  and  the  piety  of  the 
church,  but  it  requires  the  modification  of  the  polity,  and 
in  due  time  such  modification  in  polity  will  affect  also  the 
piety,  the  cultus  and  doctrine.  Yet  such  effect  will  be 
almost  imperceptible,  and  will  be  wrought  in  course  of  a 
long  time. 

"In  adopting  this  plan  a  church  will  begin  to  cease  to 
be  what  it  was  and  will  begin  to  become  what  it  ivas  not. 
This  is  the  surest  proof  that  the  plan  calls  for  more  than 
federal  and  nothing  less  than  eventual  organic  union."-'" 

How  would  such  a  gradual,  "almost  imperceptible" 
development  affect  the  Lutheran  Church  if  she  should 
make  herself  a  part  of  the  organization?  She  would  be 
unable  to  resist  the  stream  of  mediating  and  equalizing 
influences,  she  would  very  soon  cease  to  be  what  she  was 

a6     See  The  Christian  Union  Quarterly,  April  1920,  p.  10. 


226 

and  thus  lose  her  heritage  and  her  trust.  But  it  is  need- 
less to  ask  the  question.  As  we  know  the  mind  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  America,  in  the  German,  the  Scan- 
dinavian, the  English  quarters,  we  feel  convinced  that 
the  time  will  never  come  when  the  Lutheran  Church  will 
go  into  organic  union  with  the  Reformed  group  of 
churches  or  with  any  church  and  leave  the  matter  of 
doctrine  and  practice  to  a  development  of  the  future. 

It  is  outside  of  our  plan  to  discuss  forms  of  church 
federation,  that  do  not  call  for  organic  union.  For  this 
reason  we  have  resisted  the  temptation  of  discussing  the 
"Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America," 
which  comprises  most  of  the  Protestant  churches  in 
America,  but  in  which  the  Lutherans  are  not  represented. 


